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 debtors' objection to a claim seeking a discount for early payment because the debtors entered into, and the Court approved, a post-petition contract with a creditor precluding such a discount.
Upon objection by the Trustee to the Debtor's claimed exemption on Schedule C, the Court held that an untimely filed homestead deed barred the Debtor's claim of exemption under Va. Code. § 34-4. To be effective in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, a claim of exemption pursuant to the Virginia homestead exemption provided by Va. Code. § 34-4 must be perfected by recording a homestead deed in the proper Clerk's Office within five (5) days after the first scheduled date of the meeting of creditors.
The Trustee filed a Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice on the ground that the Debtor failed to comply with the Court's Order, which required him to bring his plan payments current, amend his schedules, and provide the Chapter 13 Trustee with certain financial records. Although the Debtor failed to bring his plan payments current by the hearing date, he brought sufficient funds on that date to bring himself current under the Chapter 13 plan. Nevertheless, the Debtor failed to provide the Trustee with the financial documents. The Court determined that, notwithstanding the Debtor's cantakerousness and noncompliance with the Court's prior Orders, it was proper to deny dismissal and give the Debtor an additional opportunity to perform in this bankruptcy case.
The Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the dischargeability of debt arising from a Pennsylvania Court contempt order. The plaintiff, as the moving party, has the burden to show that in light of the facts most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, the Court found that the Pennsylvania Court order and record lacked sufficient facts to establish either that the issue of larceny was tried and determined, or that the Debtor's actions were malicious. Accordingly, there existed a factual dispute regarding the issues and summary judgment is not appropriate.
The Debtor and his ex-spouse entered into a separation agreement which provided that the Debtor was to pay all of the undergraduate tuition for their three dependent children (approximately 17, 15 and 13 years old). A divorce decree was entered, which incorporated the terms of the separation agreement. The Debtor then filed for bankruptcy, and his ex-spouse filed a claim of $225,589.40 for reimbursement of primary and secondary school tuition for their children, which she asserts is entitled to priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7). The Chapter 7 Trustee objected to the priority status. The Court agreed with the Trustee, holding that a claim is a seventh priority claim under Section 507 only if the underlying debt was incurred in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree, or other court order. In this case, neither the separation agreement nor the divorce decree provide for the payment of the dependent children's primary and secondary school tuition. The separation agreement only provides for the payment of the children's undergraduate tuition; "undergraduate" is defined as "of, relating to, or engaged in college or university studies prior to the first decree." Accordingly, the Court disallowed the ex-spouse's claim of $225,589.40 in full.
This Opinion references two cases -- the above-captioned case as well as In re Shaw, Case No. 01-05217. The Debtors requested an evidentiary hearing on their claim objection on the basis that this Court needs to take additional evidence as it relates to a Pennsylvania state court judgment which forms the basis for the creditor's claim in order for the Court to be able to properly determine whether the claim falls into any of the subparagraphs of 11 U.S.C. § 506(b), which would result in disallowance of the limitation of the amount of the claim. The Debtors essentially want this Court to re-characterize the Pennsylvania state court judgment order by introducing additional evidence. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine precludes the Court from holding an evidentiary hearing to examine whether the Pennsylvania Court's judgment was based upon an employment contract when the judgment denotes it was based upon a shareholder minority oppression claim. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Accordingly, under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to receive and consider extrinsic evidence pertaining to the Pennsylvania state court judgment.
The Court granted the debtors' Motion to Reconvert their case to one under Chapter 13 after the debtors converted from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 because they experienced a substantial increase in income, had substantial equity in their home, and sincerely intended to confirm and complete a plan.
This Opinion references two cases -- the above-captioned case as well as In re Wiencko, Case No. 01-05219. The Debtors requested an evidentiary hearing on their claim objection on the basis that this Court needs to take additional evidence as it relates to a Pennsylvania state court judgment which forms the basis for the creditor's claim in order for the Court to be able to properly determine whether the claim falls into any of the subparagraphs of 11 U.S.C. § 506(b), which would result in disallowance of the limitation of the amount of the claim. The Debtors essentially want this Court to re-characterize the Pennsylvania state court judgment order by introducing additional evidence. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine precludes the Court from holding an evidentiary hearing to examine whether the Pennsylvania Court's judgment was based upon an employment contract when the judgment denotes it was based upon a shareholder minority oppression claim. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Accordingly, under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to receive and consider extrinsic evidence pertaining to the Pennsylvania state court judgment.
The court approved a proposed settlement regarding accounts receivable owed to the Debtor after determining that the settlement was in the best interest of the creditors and that it fell well above the bottom range of outcomes that would be considered reasonable. However, the release provided to an insider of both parties for guaranteeing the payment was conditioned on the Debtor actually being paid in accordance with the settlement terms.
The Court held that the debtor improperly exempted only the amount the debtor projected remaining in a bank account due to checks delivered but not presented, but granted the debtor leave to amend the exemption.