You are here

Opinions

 

The summaries on this website are summaries of the opinions issued by the judges of the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia from October 2004 to date. The opinions may be searched by year, judge, category and chapter. For a more detailed search, enter a keyword in the search box above. This opinion bank, however, is not an exhaustive list of opinions issued by the judges of the Western District. These summaries are not intended to replace other research methods, but may be used as a starting point for your research. These summaries do not contain information as to whether an opinion has been published, appealed or the disposition of any such appeal, or otherwise overruled or affected by subsequent case law or statute. These summaries have been prepared for the convenience of the researcher and in no way constitute an interpretation by the Court of the opinion summarized. Please rely on the opinion not the summary. Please contact Judge Connelly's chambers or Judge Black's chambers regarding any questions or errors.

In re Medley (Case No. 08-70572) 08/11/2008

The Court approved a Reaffirmation Agreement concerning an automobile purchase contract under 11 U.S.C. §524(c)(6)(A) despite the presumption in 11 U.S.C. § 524(b)(1) because debtor (1) has access to other financial resources in addition to her income, (2) is able to work more hours and increase her income, (3) has significant equity in her car which she created by her apparently voluntary payment prior to bankruptcy, and (4) is determined to keep the car and do what is necessary to do so and simultaneously provide for her family.

Huffman v. White (In re White) (Case No. 07-71909; A.P. No. 08-07003) 8/1/2008

Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state a cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Relying on Marunaka Dainichi Co. v.  Yamada (In re Yamada), 197 B.R. 37 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1996), Court found that the plaintiff alleged that defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff when he entered into the contract and the remaining elements necessary for finding a debt nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).  Taking the plaintiff's well-pled allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appeared to the Court that the plaintiff could establish the elements necessary for a finding of nondischargeability.

Crockett v. ECMC (In re Lucas) (Case No. 79-00018; A.P. No. 07-06058) 07/21/2008

The court held that student loans are non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) if the petition was filed on or after August 14, 1979 and that student loans are non-dischargeable under 20 U.S.C. § 1087-3 if the petition was filed before November 6, 1978, unless the court finds that failure to permit such a discharge would impose an undue hardship on the debtor or the debt was more than five years old on the date of discharge, and student loans are dischargeable if the petition was filed between the two aforementioned dates because no statute existed providing that student loans were non-dischargeable during such time.

In re Conner (Case No. 08-50354) 7/14/2008

Creditor's motion to reinstate case denied as not filed within ten day period for filing a request for alteration or amendment of judgment under Rule 9023 and as creditor did not state grounds for relief under Rule 9024.  Case dismissed for failure to timely file certain schedules and other required documents. A motion to reinstate a dismissed case is in the nature of a motion to vacate the dismissal order, which if not brought within ten days of dismissal, must show grounds for relief under Rule 9024. Prior to filing, creditor scheduled auction of certain real estate, but counsel for creditor was not informed of the filing prior to the auction.  Parties that entered into the purchase agreements at foreclosure auction are not protected by Section 549(c) because there was no transfer of an interest in real property within the meaning and intent of that section as the bidders learned of the bankruptcy filing prior to closing.  Creditor should have sought annulment of the automatic stay retroactive to time of filing.

In re Shag's Props. (Case No. 08-50355) 07/14/2008

Creditor's motion to reopen case denied.  Case dismissed for failure to timely file certain schedules and other required documents. Court held that Section 350(b) does not apply to a dismissed case; therefore the dismissal could only be undone through an appeal or a motion under Bankruptcy Rule 9023 or 9024. Prior to filing, creditor scheduled auction of certain real estate, but counsel for creditor was not informed of the filing prior to the auction.  Parties that entered into the purchase agreements at foreclosure auction are not protected by Section 549(c) because there was no transfer of an interest in real property within the meaning and intent of that section as the bidders learned of the bankruptcy filing prior to closing.  Creditor should have sought annulment of the automatic stay retroactive to time of filing.

In re Wheeler (Case No. 07-60321) 07/09/2008

The court sustained an objection to a modified plan providing for the surrender of a vehicle purchased within 910 days of the petition date in full satisfaction of a secured claim because under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5) and the concomitant "hanging paragraph," any deficiency that remains after the sale of a 910 vehicle gives rise to an unsecured debt that must be treated as an unsecured claim in the plan.

Myers v. Trout (In re Trout) (Case No. 05-70246; A.P. No. 05-07054) 7/1/2008

The matter before the Court is the plaintiff's complaint to determine the dischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), and the defendant's motion for summary judgment.  The debt in question was the result of a $20,000 jury verdict from a circuit court case.  In that case, the circuit court refused to award punitive damages, finding that the defendant's actions were not willful or malicious.  The Court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies in this case, finding that because punitive damages under Virginia state law requires a lower threshold for demonstrating willful and malicious action, and because the circuit court found that the defendant's actions were not willful or malicious, the plaintiff is precluded from relitigating the issue and therefore cannot establish a necessary element of Section 523(a)(6).   Accordingly, the Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Lay v. Ellis (In re Ellis) (Case No. 07-61696; A.P. No. 07-06112) 06/23/2008

The court held that that debtor's obligation under a separation agreement to hold non-filing former spouse harmless with regard to a personal loan is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) because it is a property settlement obligation incurred by debtor and the facts and circumstances surrounding the separation agreement do not limit the extent of the obligation.

Pages

View all »