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.
The court denied the Chapter 7 Trustee's application to employ counsel, which was made after the case was converted to Chapter 13, because the Debtor has a one-time right to convert unless ineligible under Chapter 13 and the Trustee conceded eligibility.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denying discharge, because the Debtors knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath in connection with their bankruptcy case by not disclosing the transfer of a travel trailer for no consideration to the Debtors' children within one-year of filing their case.
The court granted the U.S. Trustee's motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case for substantial abuse because the Debtors had the ability to repay between 62-72% of unsecured claims, the filing was not occasioned by an unforeseen tragedy, the Debtors' budget was excessive, and the Debtors' schedules were materially inaccurate (despite a lack of intent to mislead).
The Debtor filed a Complaint seeking a declaration that any personal obligation he may have to pay amounts owed by his company, Duncan Irrigation, Inc., to a creditor was discharged in his bankruptcy case. The Court held that the Debtor's personal guaranty of his company's debt to a creditor was not extinguished by the discharge order in the Debtor's Chapter 7 filing because: (1) credit creating the subject debt was extended to the company post-petition; (2) the Bankruptcy Code does not invalidate guarantees; and (3) the default occurred post-petition. Thus, the debt created by the Debtor's guaranty was not a contingent debt extinguished by his previous Chapter 7 filing.
The debtor filed an application for waiver of the Chapter 7 filing fee (application to proceed in forma pauperis) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f). The Court determined that the debtor's monthly income is less than 150% of the poverty guidelines published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services applicable to her family size. In addition, the debtor's expenses for housing, transportation, and living expenses are reasonable in light of the I.R.S. guidelines. Further, after analyzing the totality of the circumstances, the Court held that the debtor is unable to pay the filing fee in installments. Therefore, the Court granted the debtor's application to waive the Chapter 7 filing fee.
The Court denied hte Debtor's motion to reopen his case when a creditor recorded a judgment lien on property held as tenants by the entirety because the Debtor did not show entitlement to the relief sought under the Bankruptcy Code. Under Virginia law, property held as tenants by the entirety may be reached by joint creditors of both spouses, but not by creditors of either spouse alone. The Debtor's motion fails to allege whether the judgment is a joint judgment or a judgment only against the Debtor. Accordingly, the Court denied the Debtor's motion to reopen his case because the Debtor did not show entitlement to the relief sought under the Bankruptcy Code.
The Court determined that the effect of the "hanging paragraph" of Section 1325(a)(5) prevents bifurcation of covered secured claims, so the Debtor's Chapter 13 plan could provide for surrendering collateral in full satisfaction thereof. Because the Creditor filed an unsecured claim, the plan could not be confirmed.
The court granted the U.S. Trustee's motion to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) for substantial abuse, because in the period leading up to filing the Debtors purchased unnecessary luxury items (motorcycles) that required excessive and unreasonable expenses to maintain and forfeiture of which would enable a 67% distribution to unsecured creditors in a Chapter 13 plan.
The Court declined to dismiss the Chapter 7 Debtor's case under section 707(b) for substantial abuse, despite the fact that the Debtor had sufficient disposable income to fund a 100% plan, after analyzing the factors outlined in Green v. Staples (In re Green), 934 F.2d 568 (4th Cir. 1991).
The Court held that the Debtor's obligation under his divorce decree, to hold his ex-wife harmless for debts related to a business he retained, were dischargeable under section 523(a)(15) and were actually discharged because the ex-wife failed to file an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability within the time allowed by Rule 4007(b). Because the Court determined that the ex-wife's actions, in violation of the discharge injunction, were taken in good faith, no sanctions were appropriate.