The court recognized a cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) for contempt based on the debtor's allegation that the creditor filed a false or fraudulent proof of claim. Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.
You are here
Opinions
Click here to view.
Patrick M. Flatley
In re Watson, Case No. 10-1292
Date: 11/01/2010
Date: 11/01/2010
Creditor's motion to dismiss the debtor's Chapter 7 case for bad faith under section 707(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is granted.
First Exchange Bank v. Cross (In re Cross), Case No. 09-110
Date: 10/01/2010
Date: 10/01/2010
Bank loan and collection officer, acting as a Bank customer, did not commit a defalcation under section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code by submitting an application for a loan to his supervisor.
In re Bailey, No. 09-2564
Date: 09/24/2010
Date: 09/24/2010
Ex-spouse's motion to dismiss debtor's Chapter 13 bankruptcy case as being filed in bad faith is denied.
Parkvale Bank v. LaPosta ( In re LaPosta), Case No. 09-32
Date: 08/30/2010
Date: 08/30/2010
The court denied the debtors’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, finding the pleadings sufficient to state a claim under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and (6), and granted the debtors’ Rule 9(b) motion, in part, giving the plaintiff additional time to provide a more definite statement.
In re Bon-Air, Case No. 09-2621
Date: 08/30/2010
Date: 08/30/2010
The debtor failed to demonstrate that dismissal of its Chapter 7 case under 11 U.S.C. § 707 would be in the best interest of all the parties, especially the creditor.
First Exchange Bank v. Cross (In re Cross), Case No. 09-110
Date: 08/27/2010
Date: 08/27/2010
he bank failed to demonstrate on summary judgment that its employee, a loan officer, was a "fiduciary" within the preview of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).
Teitz v. Virginia Electric Power Co. (In re Buffalo Coal Co.), Case No. 08-38
Date: 08/16/2010
Date: 08/16/2010
The court found insufficient evidence of waiver or estoppel to prevent the Virginia Electric Power Company from terminating a coal supply agreement with Buffalo Coal company based on its insolvency and inability to pay debts when due.
Davant v. Bailey (In re Bailey), Case No. 10-15
Date: 08/13/2010
Date: 08/13/2010
Motion for sanctions under Rule 9011 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is denied. A further hearing is set to determine if the debtor’s petition should be dismissed as being filed in bad faith.
In re Tiger Aircraft, LLC, Case No. 07-47
Date: 08/06/2010
Date: 08/06/2010
Unsecured claim reclassifed as an equity interest.
Sheehan v. Key Financial Corp. (In re Satterfield), Case No. 10-57
Date: 07/26/2010
Date: 07/26/2010
Defendant's motion to dismiss debtor's complaint for lack of standing and on grounds of judicial estoppel is denied. The debtor's Chapter 7 trustee elected to administer the debtor's causes of action and judicial estoppel does not apply against the case trustee.
Roy v. Navy Federal Credit Union (In re Roy), Case No. 10-24
Date: 07/26/2010
Date: 07/26/2010
Bankruptcy court jurisdiction over pre-petition causes of action alleged by the debtor was proper when the adversary proceeding was filed. The subsequent closing of the debtor's bankruptcy case and abandonment of the causes of action by operation of law did not divest the court of its jurisdiction.
In re Ricco, Inc., 10-bk-23; In re Calandrella, 10-bk-33
Date: 06/28/2010
Date: 06/28/2010
The individual debtors' gross mismanagement and incompetence justified the appointment of a trustee in their individual Chapter 11 case and in the Chapter 11 case of the corporation that the male debtor controlled.
In re Universal Enterprises of West Virginia, Case No. 09-2862
Date: 06/09/2010
Date: 06/09/2010
One attorney may represent two related debtor estates under section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code where the related entities share an identity of interest and a unity of purpose, despite the fact that inter-company claims may exist arising out of a landlord-tenant relationship. The court will take a "wait and see" approach to determine if the potential conflicts of interest ripen into actual conflicts of interest requiring the disqualification of counsel.
In re Tucker, Case No. 09-bk-00914
Date: 05/28/2010
Date: 05/28/2010
The court denied a motion to dismiss the involuntary petition, because dismissal was not warranted as a sanction under Rule 37(d), and the Debtor's assertion that one of the petitioners did not actually authorize the petition contradicts the well-pled facts forth in the petition.
In re Quail Farm, Case No. 09-bk-00298
Date: 05/05/2010
Date: 05/05/2010
Secured creditor's motion to dismiss for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(A) was granted based upon the Debtor's negative cash flow, depreciating asset values, and lack of any reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation.
In re Hickory Ridge, LLC, Case No. 07-1251
Date: 04/26/2010
Date: 04/26/2010
Bank's motion for relief from the automatic stay under section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code is granted. Debtor's motion to convert case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 11 is denied because the individual purportedly authorizing the conversion was a dissociated member without management authority.
Bailey v. Davant (In re Bailey), Case No. 10-5
Date: 04/12/2010
Date: 04/12/2010
Creditor's failure to affirmatively release a pre-petition garnishment of the debtor's wages violated the automatic stay. The creditor and her attorney may be held jointly and severally liable for the violation.
Pague v. Harshman, et al. (In re Pague), Case No. 09-ap-00071
Date: 04/05/2010
Date: 04/05/2010
A creditor and her attorney violated the discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) by suing the Debtor on a pre-petition promissory note, obtaining judgment on that debt, and undertaking post-judgment collection efforts. Court imposed sanctions for civil contempt, which included payment to the Debtor of attorneys' fees, costs, and compensatory damages. The record did not justify sanctions for punitive damages.
Walker v. Wells Fargo (In re Walker), Case No. 08-ap-00011
Date: 03/30/2010
Date: 03/30/2010
Motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in part and denied in part. Post-petition presentment of an account statement was not an attempt to collect from the estate under § 362(a)(3) or a collection effort against the Debtors under § 362(a)(6). The complaint, however, alleged sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim that Wells Fargo made a post-petition assessment of a pre-petition claim under § 362(a)(6). Debtors' claims under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act were preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. Debtors' claims under the FDCPA failed to state a claim because Wells Fargo is not a debt collector under that Act. Debtors' causes of action under §§ 506 and 105 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016 failed to state a claim because those provisions do not create a private right of action. Debtors' claim under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 failed to state a claim because the Debtors failed to comply with the safe harbor provisions of that Rule.