In re Leavell
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
190 B.R. 536 (1995)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Alfreda Leavell (debtor) filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on December 8, 1994. Leavell’s net monthly income was $1,550. On December 14, 1994, without disclosing her bankruptcy status, Leavell purchased a ring and a VCR from Littmans, Inc., but failed to pay for the items. In February 1995, Leavell’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. The plan revested all of the bankruptcy estate’s property in Leavell upon confirmation and required Leavell to pay $75 per month for 36 months. In July 1995, Littmans obtained a judgment against Leavell based on Leavell’s failure to pay for the ring and VCR. Littmans began garnishing $417.59 per month from Leavell’s income to satisfy the judgment. When Leavell’s attorney learned about the garnishment, the attorney notified Littmans’ counsel, W. Wayne Tiffany, about the Chapter 13 case and asked Tiffany to dismiss the garnishment. Tiffany refused. Leavell subsequently sought a contempt finding and sanctions against Littmans and Tiffany, asserting that the garnishment action violated the automatic stay of collection actions against property of a bankruptcy estate to satisfy a debt incurred after the debtor filed the bankruptcy petition. Littmans and Tiffany argued that because confirmation of Leavell’s Chapter 13 plan vested all property of the bankruptcy estate in Leavell, there was no remaining estate property to be protected by the stay.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (St. John, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.