In re Kent (Case No. 05-63921) 03/10/2006
The Court reopened the Chapter 7 Debtor's case after discharge because the Debtor was not properly noticed to appear at a reaffirmation hearing during the pendency of the case.
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.
McDow v. Sears (In re Sears) (Case No. 03-03328; A.P. No. 04-00015) 03/03/2006
In a discovery dispute involving the U.S. Trustee's motion to deny the Debtor's discharge, the Court granted the Debtor's motion to compel the U.S. Trustee to disclose all material facts supporting the allegedly fraudulent conduct.
In re Harris (Case No. 05-61657) 03/03/2006
The Court declared a debt secured by a first deed of trust on the Chapter 13 Debtor's real property a wholly unsecured claim for the pendency of the case under section 522(f)(1)(A), but declined to declare the lien void until the Debtor received a discharge.
In re Jenkins (Case No. 05-74827) 03/01/2006
The courts sanctioned Debtor's counsel for failing to determine and communicate facts in a timely manner to the Chapter 13 Trustee, as ordered by the court.
Callahan, Jr., Trustee v. Enderle (In re General Creations, Inc.) (Case No. 03-01782; A.P. No. 05-07095) 02/28/2006
The court held that the two year statutory period in 11 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1)(A) is computed by calendar months according to the anniversary date rule, and is not computed by days. Therefore, the Trustee's complaint was timely filed.
Callahan, Jr., Trustee v. Moore (In re General Creations, Inc.) (Case No. 03-01782; A.P. No. 05-07092) 02/28/2006
The court held that the two year statutory period in 11 U.S.C. section 546(a)(1)(A) is computed by calendar months according to the anniversary date rule; not by days. Therefore, the Trustee's complaint was timely filed.
Callahan, Jr., Trustee v. Adair (In re General Creations, Inc.) (Case No. 03-01782; A.P. No. 05-07093) 02/28/2006
The court held that the two year statutory period in 11 U.S.C. section 546(a)(1)(A) is computed by calendar months according to the anniversary date rule; not by days. Therefore, the Trustee's complaint was timely filed.
Callahan v. Moore et al. (In re General Creations) (Case No. 03-01782, A.P. Nos. 05-07092, 05-07093, 05-07094, 05-07095) 2/28/2006
Court held that adversary proceeding was timely filed under section 546(a)(1)(A) and Rule 9006. Using the anniversary date rule, the last day for instituting an action was the anniversary date of the relevant act even when the intervening period included an extra leap year day. The Court disagreed with the defendants' argument that the 2 year time frame was 730 days and did not include the extra leap year day and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Callahan, Jr., Trustee v. Russell (In re General Creations, Inc.) (Case No. 03-01782; A.P. No. 05-07094) 02/28/2006
The court held that the two year statutory period in 11 U.S.C. section 546(a)(1)(A) is computed by calendar months according to the anniversary date rule; not by days. Therefore, the Trustee's complaint was timely filed.
In re Shelton (Case No. 05-73640) 2/24/2006
Trustee's objection to debtor's claim of exemptions overruled except to the extent that the amount of the debtor's wages held by the trustee exceeded the amount claimed as exempt in the debtor's amended homestead deed. Amended homestead deed filed after date initially set for 341 creditors meeting but before continued 341 meeting date. Amended homestead deed timely filed under Va. Code section 34-17(A) as it was filed within five days of the conclusion of the 341 meeting. The 5 day period begins to run when the meeting is concluded, not when it is merely commenced.