The Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment because its claims primarily sought damages, which were stayed under the parties' agreed bifurcated scheduling order, and several counterclaims depend on first resolving ownership. The Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, holding under Virgina law that ownership of the trucks never transferred because the certificates of title were never endorsed and delivered to the Plaintiff.
You are here
Opinions
Click here to view.
Honorable David L. Bissett
Date: 09/23/2026
The Court denied both the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's summary judgment motions because genuine disputes of material fact remained, particularly over whether the Defendant received proper notice of the Plaintiff Whitcotton's attorney representation and whether debt collection calls violated the WVCCPA and TCPA. The Court also allowed the negligence and tortious interference claims to proceed, finding they were not solely dependent on the WVCCPA claim and that unresolved factual issues prevented judgment as a matter of law.
Date: 05/27/2026
The Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss because the complaint plausibly alleged that a debt arising from a divorce decree is a non-dischargeable domestic support obligation under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and alternatively exempt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). The Court also denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ruling that a state divorce court's label alone does not automatically make the debt non-dischargeable, and the bankruptcy court must independently determine dischargeability under federal bankruptcy law.
Date: 04/24/2026
The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and granted Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, holding that the deed in lieu of foreclosure executed between the parties was valid and enforceable. The Court determined the deed in lieu of foreclosure was supported by adequate consideration, free from undue advantage, and the transaction was fair overall.
Date: 04/20/2026
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on claims of automatic stay and discharge violations and granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the Defendant’s prepetition filing of an application for a charging order, without entry of an actual charging order or any postpetition collection activity, did not create a legal restraint on the Plaintiffs’ property or impose an affirmative duty on the Defendant to withdraw the application following the bankruptcy filing.
