In In re Kohls, 2007 LEXIS 76 (Bankr NDWVa 2007), the debtor filed this adversary proceeding against the Bank to cancel indebtedness and recover damages related to a $34,864 loan that the Bank made to the Debtor on the grounds that the loan was unconscionable at the time it was executed in violation of W. Va. Code § 46A-2-121. The court noted that (1) the debtor -- as a 37-year old female who had nearly completed a degree in business and was employed as a contract analyst for a phone company -- was “not uneducated, unsophisticated, illiterate, or infirm”; (2) the debtor did not allege that the bank was the only lending institution in a position to make a loan to the debtor or that the loan was a financial necessity, so there was no showing of compulsion or oppression by the bank; (3) the debtor did not allege that the bank knew at the time of the execution of the loan that the anticipated refinancing would not be possible; and (4) the debtor did not allege that the bank deceived her concerning the loan terms, or that she suffered an unfair surprise regarding unfair loan terms, and the loan had no terms that could be characterized as unconscionable on its face. Id. at *9-*13. Emphasizing that “[a] bargain is not unconscionable merely because the parties to it are unequal in bargaining position, nor even because the inequality results in allocation of risks to the weaker party,” the court held on summary judgment that the facts did not warrant a finding that the loan agreement was unconscionable. Id. at *9.