Smith v. McLeskey (In Re Bay Vista of Virginia, Inc.)

394 B.R. 820 | United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia | 2008

enforcedCited 19 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over trustee's complaint to recover alleged overpayments from foreclosure sale proceeds and need not abstain from hearing the matter.

Abstention Motion is denied.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, 2008

Related Cases

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.

Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi

1992enforced

A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.

Weize Co. v. Colorado Regional Construction, Inc.

2010affirmed

A general contractor violated Colorado's construction trust fund statute by failing to hold funds in trust for subcontractors and suppliers, and a lien release bond does not exempt contractors from trust fund obligations or excuse failure to record a lis pendens.

Sage Street Associates v. Northdale Construction Co.

1993remanded

Texas Constitution's usury provision applies only to lending transactions, not to judicially-awarded prejudgment interest, which derives from court order rather than commercial agreement.

Citizens National Bank v. Allen Rae Investments Inc.

2004modified

Bank committed fraud by concealing material information about lender's concerns and contractor's financial instability from borrower, and such fraud cannot be waived by general contractual disclaimers that do not specifically address the withheld information.

Parker v. Columbia Bank

1992enforced

Bank's motion to dismiss fraud and breach of contract claims was properly granted because alleged misrepresentations were opinions rather than facts, and the loan agreement contained no contractual duty to monitor construction or protect borrower's interests.