Wilder v. Buckeye Union Insurance Co. (In re Wilder)

165 B.R. 413, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 447
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia
DecidedFebruary 4, 1994
DocketBankruptcy No. 7-92-01335-HPB-13; Adv. Nos. 7-93-00014, 7-93-00016
StatusPublished

This text of 165 B.R. 413 (Wilder v. Buckeye Union Insurance Co. (In re Wilder)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilder v. Buckeye Union Insurance Co. (In re Wilder), 165 B.R. 413, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 447 (E.D. Va. 1994).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

H. CLYDE PEARSON, Bankruptcy Judge.

The issue in these Adversary Proceedings essentially is the validity, priority, and amount of the liens of Buckeye Union Insurance Company (“Buckeye Union”) and Dominion Bank (now First Union Bank) by virtue of docketed judgments upon the real estate of Douglas and Shirley R. Wilder (“Debtors”), the Debtors’ home, pursuant to Rule 7001(2).

On September 21, 1989 the Debtors filed their joint Chapter 7 case in this Court seeking and obtaining a discharge of their indebtedness. Other than a totally encumbered automobile, the only asset the Debtors scheduled, and which was administered in the Chapter 7 case, was the Debtors’ residence in Keokee, Lee County, Virginia. Following the § 341 creditors’ meeting, Dominion Bank and, presumably, Buckeye Union requested that the Trustee abandon the residential property. These and other creditors tendered to the Trustee for endorsement an abandonment application under Rule 6007 certifying to the Trustee that the value of the said residence was $35,000.00 with $40,000.00 indebtedness against the residence. The Trustee did endorse the application for abandonment and the property was thereafter abandoned under the statutes and rules of this Court.

Thereafter, Dominion Bank and Buckeye Union proceeded in state court to liquidate the Debtors’ residence to satisfy their judgments and those of the judgment creditors. As a result of these proceedings, the Debtors filed a Chapter 13 case in this Court on June 4, 1992, seeking further relief and proposing a Plan to pay their creditors to the extent of creditors’ claims.

[414]*414As a result of the filing of the Chapter 13 ease, the within Adversary Proceedings were created from Debtors’ objections under Rule 7007 to determine validity, priority, and amount of those liens and to avoid the same if appropriate. Another adversary proceeding was filed questioning the amount of a lien of a first deed of trust of Sovran Mortgage (now NationsBank). (This adversary proceeding concerning the deed of trust has apparently been resolved by payment in full.) At the hearing upon the Adversary Proceedings herein, Motions to Dismiss were filed because of inadequacy of the pleadings; however, the Court placed all parties on notice that the essential issue to be determined by this Court upon a hearing of these Adversary Proceedings was the value of the property and whether or not the liens were voidable and their validity, priority, and amount under Rule 7001(2) because of the prior discharge of the Debtors in the Chapter 7 case, the issue being whether or not there was equity in support of said liens when the Chapter 7 case was filed. (See Buckeye Union’s Exhibit B setting forth what essentially the Court had directed would be tried. This Exhibit being a memorandum from counsel to other counsel of judgment creditors.) However, the Motion to Dismiss was taken under advisement with the understanding that the Court would decide the merits of these Adversary Proceedings and rule on the Motion to Dismiss thereafter. For the reasons hereafter stated, the Motion to Dismiss is

ORDERED

denied; and the Court will proceed to rule upon the merits of the issues before the Court based on the evidence.

When the Chapter 7 case was filed on September 21, 1989, the record reflects that the liens and encumbrances upon the Debtors’ real estate consisted of the following:

1.The record and the evidence before the Court upon the hearing herein reflects that the delinquent real estate taxes due and owing to the Treasurer of Lee County at the time of the filing of the Chapter 7 case was approximately $9,261.00. This apparently contains additional penalties and interest attached thereto. This tax, pursuant to Ya. Code § 58.1-3340, constitutes a prior lien ahead of all other liens.

2. The second lien in order was a first lien deed of trust of then Sovran Mortgage (now NationsBank Mortgage) in the then principal amount of $12,993.31.

3. The Debtors filed and properly perfected, in the Chapter 7 case, homestead exemptions in the amount of $9,700.00 claimed in their personal residence.

4. A judgment lien of record, unreleased as of the date of the filing of the petition and apparently remains unreleased, in favor of Powell Valley Electric Coop in the original sum of $582.49 plus interest and costs for the then total of $1,008.88. This judgment was docketed on June 30, 1981.

5. A judgment lien in favor of the Town of Big Stone Gap docketed on March 9,1982 in the principal amount of $91.00 plus interest and costs for a total of $170.80.

6. The Commonwealth of Virginia had, and which remains unreleased, a tax lien docketed on September 14, 1983 in the principal sum of $1,099.46 plus interest for a total of $1,946.04 as of the date of the Chapter 7 petition.

The foregoing liens and exemption total $35,080.03.

In addition to the foregoing, Buckeye Union docketed its judgment on February 27, 1984 for $13,378.85 plus interest. To date, it amounts to approximately $22,000.00 and with claimed attorney’s fees, etc., its claim herein is approximately $27,000.00. Dominion Bank (now First Union), likewise, docketed its judgment subsequent to Buckeye Union in the amount of $14,882.00.

The essential issue for this Court to determine is to what extent, if any, does the lien of Buckeye Union Insurance Company have equity supporting it in the Debtors’ residence. (It would appear that First Union’s lien is moot even under the most favorable valuation.) The issue then is reduced to evaluation of the Debtors’ principal residence upon which all the foregoing liens attached.

The evidence heard and presented, documentary or otherwise, upon the evaluation of [415]*415the Debtors’ residence consists essentially of the Debtors’ testimony, the testimony of an appraiser, Mr. Livesay, in behalf of creditors, and the tax evaluation by the office of the Commissioner of Revenue of Lee County wherein the real estate is situated. The evaluation determination herein is somewhat complicated and difficult for the simple reason that the residence, although viewed from a distance as a valuable structure, is totally misleading.1 The evidence, however, overwhelmingly shows that the dynamite blasting from mining operations in the vicinity of this residence has wreaked havoc upon the structure causing extensive damage thereto. This is clearly reflected by the evidence and testimony of the appraiser and the Debtor.

The appraiser testified that if the property were in other locations, it would be very desirable and valuable. The infirmities attendant upon the property, including leaks, bricks separated, cracks in the structure, wavy roof, and other damaged portions of the dwelling, results in a diminished value. Although the evidence clearly shows that the foundation, as viewed from the basement of the dwelling, was in a precarious position with main floor support beams cracked and broken from the blasting operations, the testimony of the appraiser indicated that he had not gone into the basement nor reviewed these structural damages in the examination of the property.

The testimony of the appraiser was vague, uncertain, and inconclusive; and the content of the appraisal was made absent a full and complete review and examination of the property in question.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Leasing Service Corp. v. Justice
416 S.E.2d 439 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1992)
In Re Underwood
103 B.R. 849 (E.D. Michigan, 1989)
In Re Weiss
51 B.R. 224 (D. Colorado, 1985)
Galvan v. Galvan (In Re Galvan)
110 B.R. 446 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 B.R. 413, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilder-v-buckeye-union-insurance-co-in-re-wilder-vaed-1994.