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 competing motions for summary judgment and ordered an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether documents executed by the Debtor created an equitable assignment of exempt property to pay a discharged debt.
The Court denied the Chapter 13 Trustee's oral motion to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2) because the serious nature and consequences of such a motion warrant a written motion being filed and noticed for hearing.
The Court held that notice of foreclosure that was sent pursuant to a consent decree but to the wrong address, was defective so the foreclosure violated the automatic stay.
Automatic stay does not apply to the collection of any support from property that is not property of the estate. Property of the estate for Chapter 13 purposes includes post-petition earnings of the debtor only to the extent paid to Trustee or directly to creditors, as provided for in the plan or confirmation order. 11 U.S.C. section 1327(b) (excluding remaining earnings from estate). Vacated order quashing support garnishment not provided for in Chapter 13 plan.
The Court granted a creditor's motion to extend the time to file a complaint objecting to the dischargeability of its debt.
Court held that it had "related to" jurisdiction to consider the nature and extent of lien at issue. As creditor did not consent, Court held that Bankruptcy Code did not accord it any power to invalidate a voluntary pre-bankruptcy grant of a security interest by the debtor to secure a purchase money loan. Court declined to enter default order requiring creditor to release its lien rights in property which debtor sought to hold as exempt. Creditor entrusted the lien documentation to the debtor who was to note security interest on the certificate of title with the DMV, but the debtor did not fulfuill this responsibility until after petition was filed.
The Court denied the debtor’s Motion to Reconsider the Court's order dismissing the case as untimely pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, which generally incorporates Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In a prior Chapter 13 case, the Debtor voluntarily sought and obtained the dismissal of her case after a motion for relief was filed by Wachovia Bank. The present case was filed fewer than 180 days after the dismissal of the Debtor's prior case. Wachovia argues that under 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2), the Debtor's case should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Citing to Judge Krumm's In re Duncan decision, in which Judge Krumm pointed out that the word "following" can commonly mean either "subsequent in time" or "as a consequence or result of," the Court denied Wachovia's motion to dismiss. See In re Duncan, 182 B.R. 156 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1995).
Court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order granting Debtor's motion to compel delivery of title, because the dispute was not "related to" the bankruptcy proceeding as required in 28 U.S.C. sections1334(a) & (b).
A creditor filed a motion for an extension of time to file a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523 objecting to the dischargeability of the debt arising from its claim. A complaint objecting to the dischargeability of a debt must be filed no later than sixty (60) days after the date first set for the meeting of creditors under Section 341(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. A motion to extend the deadline must be filed before the time to file the complaint has expired. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(b). The creditor's motion to extend time was filed prior to the deadline to file a complaint objecting to discharge; accordingly, the motion is timely filed and the Court granted the motion to extend time.