You are here

Opinions

The Northern District of West Virginia offers a database of opinions beginning in 2006, listed by year and judge.

For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Our Opinions are also posted under United States Courts Opinions at the U.S. Government Printing Office ( GPO ).
Click here to view.

 

 

Patrick M. Flatley

Leneski v. Smith (In re Smith), Case No. 07-14
Date: 12/18/2007

Landlord's section 523(a)(6) cause of action against a debtor/tenant for wilful and malicious injury to property is denied.

In re Fiddler, Case No. 04-4213
Date: 12/18/2007

The Chapter 13 trustee's motion to modify the debtor's confirmed plan on the basis that the value of the property increased from $112,000 in Novmeber 2004 to $204,000 by July 2007 is denied because the trustee failed to prove that the increase in the value of the property was unanticipated given the pre-petition, and pre-confirmation, local real estate trends in Ranson, West Virginia. Without a showing that the property's increase in value was unanticipated, the trustee could not overcome the res judicata effect of confirmation.

In re Simms, Case No. 06-1206
Date: 12/17/2007

The debtor's request that the creditor's proof of claim be disallowed based on an alleged failure to include appropriate supporting documentation, or a notice of an assignment, is overruled. The debtor failed to allege any grounds under section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code for the disallowance of the claim, and the debtor's objection, even if valid, would only affect the creditor's entitlement to a Rule 3001(f) prima facie presumption as to the claim's validity and amount. Because the debtor failed to assert any basis for departing from the American Rule on attorney's fees, the debtor's request that the creditor pay his attorney's fees of $250 is denied.

In re Iams Funeral Home, Inc., Case No. 07-1397
Date: 12/06/2007

Litigation initiated by the Attorney General in state court is excepted from the automatic stay under section 362(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor's claim for damages for alleged breaches of the automatic stay is denied.

In re Campbell, Case No. 07-457
Date: 11/18/2007

The debtor filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his Chapter 13 case, and sold real property during the time when the Clerk noticed out his motion to dismiss to parties in interest. A creditor then sought to set aside the sale of the property as being unauthorized under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. The court ruled that a Chapter 13 debtor has an absolute right to dismiss his case under section 1307(b), which right is not restricted by a creditor's competing motion to convert under section 1307(c). The Clerk, however, acted appropriately in sending out notice of the debtor's motion to dismiss because, at a minimum, other parties should be allowed the opportunity to request that the debtor's dismissal be conditioned under section 349. Considering the voluntary nature of Chapter 13, the order dismissing the debtor's case is effective nunc pro tunc to the date of the filing of the motion. Consequently, the creditor's motion to set aside the sale of property as being unauthorized under section 363(b) is denied.

Johnston v. Valley Credit Services, Inc. (In re Johnston), Case No. 06-180
Date: 10/26/2007

Debtor's motion for summary judgment for the creditor's alleged violaiton of the discharge injunction is denied on the basis that the debtor failed to demonstrate that the creditor had knoweldge that the discharge injunction applied to the debt it sought to collect. Creditor's motion for summary judgment is granted on the grounds that debtor could not prove that Valley Credit was seeking to collect on what it knew to be a discharged debt.

In re Nestor, Case No. 05-6772
Date: 10/08/2007

Because the Debtor's exemption in real property that he owned as of the petition date was impaired by the judicial lien, the Debtor's motion to avoid judicial lien is granted. Sale of the property after the petition date and subsequent conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 do not impact the analysis of the judicial lien because the petition date is the appropriate time for calculations concerning judicial lien avoidance.

Aylsworth v. U.S. Department of Education (In re Aylsworth), Case No. 04-67
Date: 08/30/2007

Debtor's student loans were excepted from discharge because he presented insufficient medical evidence to satisfy the second prong and he failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to repay his loans in light of his lack of communication with the Department of Education and minimal payments.

Faircloth v. Palmer (In re Palmer), Case No. 06-76
Date: 08/01/2007

The Plaintiff's claims to except an alleged debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) or to deny entry of a discharge pursuant to § 727(a)(4)(A) are denied. Plaintiff failed to prove that he allegedly loaned the Debtor money when she fraudulently misrepresented her intention to repay him. Plaintiff also failed to prove that the Debtor knowingly and fraudulently undervalued her home on Schedule A of her bankruptcy petition.

Sheehan v. Little (In re Lauri), Case No. 06-85
Date: 07/11/2007

The trustee's motion for partial summary judgment on a section 548 fraudulent transfer cause of action is denied on the basis that genuine issues of material fact exists regarding whether the alleged fraudulent transfer concerned property of the debtor, or property that the debtor was holding for the benefit of another under an oral trust of personal property.

Kinder Morgan/Pinney Dock & Transport LLC v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc. (In re Weirton Steel Corp.), Case No. 06-186
Date: 07/06/2007

The court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the dispute involved the non-payment of a cure amount for the assignement of an executory contract. Payment of the cure amount was delegated to the Debtor's bankruptcy purchaser with the non-debtor party to the executory contract giving a full release of liability to the Debtor. The outcome of the contract dispute would have no effect on the Debtor's bankrutpcy estate.

Robinson v. Robinson (In re Robinson), Case No. 05-137
Date: 06/25/2007

Debtor's motion to reconsider is denied. A "discharge" in bankruptcy, as the term is defined by section 524(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, does not "discharge" a judgment lien within the meaning of section 38-3-6 of the West Virginia Code.

Puller v. Credit Collections, USA, Inc., (In re Puller), Case No. 06-157
Date: 06/20/2007

The debtor stated a cause of action for a violation of the discharge injunction when the debtor alleged that the creditor failed to timely update information that the creditor furnished to credit reporting agencies pre-pretition. The debtor is entitled to conduct further discovery on that cause of action before the court rules on the creditor's motion for summary judgment.

In re Cottrill, Case No. 06-00819
Date: 06/19/2007

The Debtors cannot waive 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1) in order to file reaffirmation agreements made after the court enters the Debtors' discharge order. The court would not vacate the Debtors' discharge for the purpose of approving reaffirmation agreements in the absence of a valid reason under Rule 60(b). Because the reaffirmation agreements are untimely, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.

Brown v. Fairmont State University (In re Brown), Case No. 06-24
Date: 06/15/2007

Debtor's student loans were discharged because she satisfied the three prongs of the Brunner test.

United Bank v. Fedczak (In re Fedczak), Case No. 05-195
Date: 06/06/2007

The debtor's discharge is denied under section 727(a)(2)(A) for concealing property, and, in the alternative, under section 727(a)(4)(A) for making a false oath or account.

Wilson v. Wilson (In re Wilson), Case No. 06-00005
Date: 06/06/2007

Summary judgment was appropriate where the Debtor was collaterally estopped from relitigating the State Court's factual findings that she intentionally interfered with her former husband's relationship with his daughter by falsely accusing him of child sexual abuse. Therefore, the debts arising from such willful and malicious conduct are excepted from discharge pursuant 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

In re Ball, Case No. 06-1002
Date: 05/30/2007

Motions for a prelimiary injunction asserted by creditors of the bankruptcy estate and by the United States trustee to prohibit the distribution of sale proceeds to a co-owner of real property, on the grounds that the co-owner may be liable to the bankrutpcy estate on either a fradulent transfer or unjust enrichment cause of action, are denied. The causes of action asserted by the parties are property of the bankrutpcy estate; without a grant of derivative standing to the creditors or the United States trustee, only the Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession has the standing to litigate those causes of action. Pursuant to Scott v. National Century Fin. Enters. (In re Baltimore Emergency Serv. II, Corp.), 432 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 2005), a court may not issue a preliminary injunction to a party without standing to assert a cause of action against the defendant.

Nixon v. United States (In re Nixon), Case No. 06-219
Date: 05/09/2007

The Chapter 13 debtor's pre-discharge complaint to determine the dischargeability of a 2002 income tax laibility is dismissed pursuant to the IRS's motion for a judgment on the pleadings. The IRS conceeded that, should the debtor receive a discharge at the end of the debtor's proposed 60 month plan, the taxes would be discharged. Therefore, although all the facts necessary for making the dischargeability determination had already occurred, the issue was not ripe for review because no hardship existed to the debtor by withholding a court order on dischargeabiltiy until after the debtor obtained his discharge.

In re Smith, Case No. 92-20159
Date: 05/07/2007

Domestic support creditor's objection to the Chapter 7 trustee's final report is sustained in part and overruled in part. The creditor filed a proof of claim nearly ten years after the claim's bar date, but because part of that claim purported to be priority, and because the trustee had not begun distribution, the late filed priority claim should be considered by the trustee under section 726(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. The creditor's objection that she was entitled to earmark about $26,000 of estate assets for her sole benefit based on the language of an unapproved legal services agreement, that the debtor signed before the conversion of his Chapter 11 case, was overruled on the grounds that the court never approved that provision of the legal services agreement, and because the court would not approve a distribution scheme that was contrary to section 726.
 

Pages