The Court stated that a default judgment entered against the Debtor in Virginia, after a receiver had been appointed in Tucker County, West Virginia, rendered the Virginia default judgment void because the Tucker County Court was vested with exclusive jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Court found that the underlying agreement was valid even though it had not been affirmatively approved by the WV Public Service Commission, and found that the agreement was voidable by the creditor, at its option, based on material misrepresentations by the Debtor’s former officers.

In granting the Defendant summary judgment on Counts I through III, the court found that the defendant collection of its Kentucky judgment via a wage garnishment in Ohio did not violate the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”) despite the Plaintiff-Debtor residing in West Virginia.  Also, the court denied summary judgment to the Plaintiff on Count IV alleging a preference action based upon disputed material facts, particularly whether the Defendant, a judgment lien creditor, obtained more than it would have in a case under Chapter 7.

Debtor alleged a violation of the automatic stay and sought a declaration of contempt for notification of child support arrearage addressed in the Chapter 13 plan after child relocated to another state. Mere notification does not amount to a willful violation of the automatic stay and the agency was exercising its state police and regulatory powers.

The court grants the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Debtor’s claim that it violated the West Virginia Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act, W. Va. Code § 55-14-1 et seq.  Despite the Debtor residing and working in West Virginia, the court found that the Defendant’s enforcement of its Florida judgment by garnishing the Debtor’s wages in Florida did not constitute the enforcement of its judgment in West Virginia.

The court denied the Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In the case, the Plaintiff obtained a money judgment against the Debtors by the Maryland State Court and a subsequent judicial lien by the West Virginia State Court. The Plaintiff did not argue that the indebtedness relating to the Maryland State Court Judgment should be excepted from discharge, but rather the judicial lien granted by the West Virginia State Court. Notably, the Debtors did not contest whether they committed actual fraud; however, they did dispute whether the debt was “obtained by” fraud. The court ultimately held that the judicial lien obtained by the Plaintiff in the West Virginia State Court was not a debt for money obtained by actual fraud which could be excepted from the Debtors’ dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result, the court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s adversary proceeding as it could not state a plausible claim to relief.

The Court determined that it had the authority to enter a final order in the case. Because the court found that the debtor-creditor relationship did not rise to the level of a “special relationship” under West Virginia law that was sufficient to support a cause of action for breach of a fiduciary duty, the Court dismissed that cause of action in the complaint and also dismissed a cause of action for an accounting.

The debtor-seller failed to provide insurable access to a hotel pursuant to an express provision in the purchase and sell agreement. The buyer was not obligated to purchase the hotel and was entitled to a return of its earnest money deposit.