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.
Moving party has burden to prove bad faith by a preponderance of the evidence. After reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court held that, from the Debtor's perspective, the case and plan were filed in good faith. The Debtor's eligibility for discharge is irrelevant to the confirmation of the plan.
The court denied the Debtors' motion to reaffirm a secured debt as not in their best interest where the value of the collateral was less than half of the amount to be reaffirmed and the Debtors' expenses exceed their income.
The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to confirmation of the debtors' Chapter 13 plan on the grounds that it does not provide for the payment of all of the debtors' projected disposable income during the five-year term of the proposed plan, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b). Section 1325(b)(1)-(3) provides the calculation method that an above-median income debtor must use to determine the minimum monthly amount that he or she must pay unsecured creditors under a proposed plan. The Court held that the "amounts reasonably necessary to be expended for support" as used in Section 1325(b)(2) are "future-oriented." Thus, the "amounts" referred to in Section 1325(b)(2) are amounts that a debtor will make in the future as provided in the plan; they are not amounts that are provided for in pre-petition contracts that give rise to both secured and unsecured claims. Accordingly, any deduction from income based on a secured claim that no longer exists may not be allowed. The Court sustained the Chapter 13 Trustee's objection to the debtors' plan.
Counsel for debtor's application for compensation allowed in part. Burden of proof on counsel to prove services were actually rendered, reasonable and necessary. Typing services of paralegal, when counsel's time dictating the documents in question have been separately charged, are part of overhead. Charges for travel and applications for compensation approved at 75% of the standard hourly rate.
The Court concluded that Section 549 does not apply to transfers authorized by the Court and that "ends of justice" do not require granting the Trustee's second motion for leave to amend complaint to add such a count.
The court granted the Chapter 13 Trustee's motion to dismiss because the Debtor failed to comply with an order to which he consented, requiring that he be current on all plan payments.
The court held that the Debtors' case should not be dismissed under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) for substantial abuse because a Chapter 13 plan would provide a relatively modest distribution to general unsecured creditors, a third of the Debtors' general unsecured debt was due to medical bills, and the Debtors had no substantial credit card obligations.
Objection to debtor's motion to add a creditor to his bankruptcy schedules sustained as the creditor's claim was a post-petition obligation not affected by the discharge order.
The Court declined to dismiss the Chapter 7 case under section 707(b) for substantial abuse, despite the fact that the Debtor had disposable income, after analyzing the factors outlined in Green v. Staples (In re Green), 934 F.2d 568 (4th Cir. 1991).
The Court approved the Chapter 7 Trustee's fee application after conducting the lodestar analysis.