All Opinions by All Judges
Docket Date Description 06.02.2009 JB In re Wyckoff;
(Order denying motion to reopen Chapter 13 case.);
08-62203-BJ (Docket #23); 05.29.2009 JEM In re Rogers
Court denied unopposed motion to avoid judicial liens that alleged only that the liens impaired a $10,000 exemption with respect to a residence valued on schedule C at $656,000. Debtor failed to allege in the motion that there were any other liens against the residence. In his schedule C, however, Debtor showed consensual liens amounting to only $430,396, leaving ample equity to support the judicial liens after reserving for the claimed exemption.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 09-60109 Doc #:36 05.29.2009 MHM Ragsdale v. Morgan ;
(denial of motion to set aside default judgment)
AP 08-6651 05.28.2009 JEM In re Mithchell
Court denied unopposed motion to avoid lien held by a respondent that is an insured depository institution because movant failed to show in the certificate of service compliance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(h).
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 09-67911 Doc #:13 05.27.2009 WHD In re Norsworthy,
(holding that the debtor does not have an absolute right to dismiss a Chapter 13 case; court has limited discretion to consider a request to convert the case to Chapter 7).
BK 05-15098 Doc# 84 05.22.2009 PWB In re: Allison Vanessa Kee
Application for unclaimed funds disbursed on claim for arrearage on note secured by security deed on debtor’s residence denied, without prejudice, in absence of showing that debt has not been satisfied through sale or foreclosure. Court notes discrepancies in the record concerning the holder to the claim and states, “The Court relies on lawyers to be accurate in their pleadings and proposed orders. The Court cannot possibly check the technical accuracy of every proposed order presented by consent or without opposition, but the Court will not knowingly enter orders such as the ones referenced to if they contain material unexplained discrepancies. For example, the Court will not knowingly enter an order on a motion for stay relief filed by a lender or servicer if the record shows that another entity holds the claim unless the lender or servicer shows good cause for doing so.” Application also denied because parent corporation is not authorized to obtain funds of its alleged subsidiary.
BK 01-87193 Doc#60 05.22.2009 PWB In re: Kevin Landry and Terese Landry
Pro se Motions to avoid lien denied, without prejudice, to permit debtor time to amend Schedule C to claim residence as exempt.
BK 09-61843 Doc#49 05.20.2009 JEM In re Copeland
Motion for stay relief denied. In May 2009, movant’s attorney submitted a proposed order not consented to by opposing counsel that recited “at the January 9, 2009 hearing, the parties stipulated” an agreement. In fact, a different attorney for movant had merely announced at the calendar call in January that a consent order would be presented. Because movant’s attorneys failed to comply with BLR 9013-2(a), which requires submission of a proposed order within 7 days of a scheduled hearing, and because the proposed order misstated what happened at the hearing and lacked debtor’s counsel’s consent, the court denied the motion.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-74645 Doc #:30 05.15.2009 JB Rodriguez v. United States Department of Education (In re Rodriguez);
(11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8); Debtor's motion to reopen case to file undue hardship complaint Granted);
08-82836 Doc#27 05.14.2009 PWB Perkins v. Harley-Lewis (In re Int’l Management Associates, LLC),
Because the Plaintiff’s request for entry of money judgment was founded on the avoidance of transfers, entry of default judgment must be made by court under Rule 55(b)(2), and not clerk under Rule 55(b)(1), but default judgment could not entered presently due to failure to comply with Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
AP No. 08-6180-,Doc. No. 13 05.12.2009 WHD Israel v. United States Dept of Education,
(granting plaintiff additional time to obtain account records to provide in response to defendant's discovery requests and extending the discovery period).
AP 08-1701 Doc# 38 04.30.2009 PWB Walton v. Fowler,
Order denying the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(8). Debtor had prior case, filed over seven years earlier as a chapter13 and converted and discharged as chapter 7. Debtor contended that, because she filed the prior case under a chapter 13, § 727(a)(8) is inapplicable. The court concluded that this argument ignores the plain language of both § 727(a)(8) and § 348(a). Section 727(a)(8) does not require that the prior case be commenced under chapter 7; it only requires that the debtor has been granted a discharge under chapter 7 in a case commenced within the previous 8 years. Secondly, courts have construed § 348(a) to mean that a case that has been converted to chapter 7 from chapter 13 relates back to initial filing date for purposes of discharge.
AP No. 08-6687-[Doc. No. 6 ] 04.29.2009 PWB In re Glover,
Based on finding that the Debtor did not authorize the filing of a Chapter 13 petition, the Court vacates earlier order of dismissal and dismisses the case as a fraudulent and unauthorized filing for which the Debtor was not responsible. Court cannot direct credit reporting company to change records but authorizes the reporting of the petition as being fraudulent and without the debtor’s authority. Court directs copies of the Order to be sent to the U.S. Attorney,. U.S. Trustee, and State Bar of Georgia for further investigation as to whether conduct of lawyer and person who submitted the petition was fraudulent, criminal, or otherwise improper.
BK 07-95002 Doc#27 04.27.2009 JEM Constance Roberts;
Debtor filed an application to employ the attorney who filed her bankruptcy case to represent her in truth in lending case. The Court denied the application because a debtor in a bankruptcy case (as opposed to a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 case) is free to employ any professional that the debtor chooses to employ for any purpose, including prosecution of a cause of action that the debtor is entitled to pursue.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-75357 Doc #:25 04.17.2009 JEM The S&Q Shack, LLC;
In an involuntary case filed by a single creditor, the alleged debtor filed an answer to the involuntary petition denying that it was not paying its debts as they came due and a separate motion to dismiss on the ground that the debtor has more than 11 creditors. The Court denied the motion to dismiss, pointing out that the defense of too few petitioning creditors had to be raised in the answer and that Bankruptcy Rule 1003(b) requires a list of the names and addresses of all creditors so they may be afforded the chance to join the petition. The Court afforded the debtor an opportunity to amend its answer.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 09-67151 Doc #:8 04.10.2009 PWB Michael and Patricia Ray,
The Internal Revenue Service filed a proof of claim for unpaid taxes for the years 2001 through 2007. The proof of claim indicates that tax returns were filed for all years except 2007. The Debtors filed an objection to the claim, asserting that they have now filed tax their tax return for 2007 and that they received a tax refund of $950 that the IRS applied to the unpaid balance of other taxes. For some unexplained reason, they conclude that this set of circumstances entitles them to disallowance of the entire proof of claim. Although IRS did not respond to the objection or appear at the hearing, no basis for disallowance of the claim exists. The objection is denied, without prejudice to the rights of the debtors to renew the objection and to seek allowance of the IRS’s claims in the proper amount.
BK 08-43009 Doc#37 04.09.2009 PWB Roger and Veira Owens,
A Chapter 13 debtor must act in good faith in connection with the claims resolution process. IRS filed a proof of claim for taxes for 2005 through 2007, noting that the Debtors had not filed returns for those years. Debtors objected to the claim on the ground that they have now filed tax returns. Disallowance is not proper given that debtors known their tax liabilities. Objection denied, without prejudice to renew objection and to show seek allowance of claim only in amount that Debtors actually owe according to their tax returns.
BK 08-61790 Doc#52 04.07.2009 PWB In re Dabney,
Order allowing $1,500 of $3,500 chapter 13 fee request, without prejudice to the attorney’s right to seek further compensation if circumstances warrant or to file a renewed application for the currently disallowed portion. The Court concluded that the Debtor’s attorney failed to demonstrate that a fee of $3,500 for this case was reasonable, taking into account all of the factors that are relevant to determination of a reasonable fee under § 330, Rule 1.5(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Johnson factors. The court reasoned that “Fair compensation is a function of objective factors and subjective factors unique to each case. It is the role and responsibility of the debtor’s attorney to consider such factors in calculating her fee, and articulate such factors if the fee is challenged.” (Order at 13).
BK 08-77955 Doc#35 04.06.2009 PWB Christy Lynne Goodman,
When attorney declines to make certifications required in connection with reaffirmation, attorney’s responsibility is to assist client in presenting (but not advocating) the agreement to the court for review. The attorney does not have to withdraw as a condition to the court’s review of the agreement.
BK 08-41521 Doc#30 04.02.2009 JEM McColm v. Michal;
Plaintiff obtained subpoenas from the Clerk and served one of them on a California resident with a demand for document production in California. When the witness failed to produce the documents, Plaintiff moved for an order to show cause why the individual should not be held in contempt. The Court denied the motion and quashed the subpoena. Civil Rule 45, made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 9016, limits the geographic area where a subpoena may be served, and the subpoena in question was not served in accordance with that rule.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 06-9036 Doc #:138 03.31.2009 MHM Pullen v. Cornelison ;
(Attorney's decision to reopen prior case rather than file new Ch13 bankruptcy case to stop execution sale constituted professional malpractice; expert witness not necessary when the ordinary experience of the fact-finder provides sufficient basis for determining standard of care)
AP 07-6220 03.31.2009 MHM Haysman v. Georgia Department of Revenue ;
(permissive abstention under §1334(c)(1) is not authorized unless the plaintiff has an alternative forum available);
AP 08-6564; 03.25.2009 MHM Kelly v. Child Support Services;
(Under 11 U.S.C. §105(a), the bankruptcy court has authority to enjoin collection activities allowed by 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(2)(D) (suspension of Debtor's drivers' license) when warranted by circumstances);
BK 08-85727; 03.25.2009 PWB Cohutta Banking Company v. Rebecca Bowman;
A plaintiff cannot voluntarily dismiss an objection to discharge without providing notice of the proposed dismissal to the trustee, the Unites States Trustee, and other parties as the Court directs. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7041. Moreover, when a claim that a debt is nondischargeable is joined with an objection to discharge, the Court ordinarily does not permit settlement of the dischargeability matter unless the discharge objection is first resolved. Kay v. Parker (In re Parker), 2003 WL 21703528 (Bankr. N.D.Ga. 2003)
AP No. 06-4011 Doc No. 23 03.25.2009 PWB In re Taylor,
The Court has the discretion to determine whether information is “required” under § 521(a)(1), even when such inquiry occurs after the 45 day deadline. Court scheduled hearing to determine whether debtor, whose schedules reflect that she is self-employed is required to file “copies of all payment advices or other evidence of payment received within 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, by the debtor from any employer of the debtor” or whether, to the extent the Debtor was exclusively self-employed during this time period, the Court may “order otherwise” and excuse this filing requiremen
BK 09-63120 Doc. No. 21 03.25.2009 JEM Shaquannah N. Williams;
Pro se debtor’s Chapter 11 case was dismissed on motion of U.S. Trustee based in part on Debtor’s refusal to answer the Trustee’s questions. Ms. Williams contended that the debtor is a corporation called “Shaquannah N. Williams cestui que trust,” that she is a secured creditor of the Debtor and that one of the Debtor’s assets is an “indemnity bond” for $300,000,000, which she would use to pay her mortgage. The Court did not buy her contentions.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 09-61395 Doc #:22 03.23.2009 MHM In re Hamilton ;
(Denial of Debtor's motion to reopen to file proceeding to determine dischargeability of student loan: Debtor failed to set forth prima facie case of undue hardship and bankruptcy court is not exclusive forum for determination of student loan dischargeability);
BK No. 07-68258; 03.23.2009 PWB Tim Bice Enterprises, Inc.
Debtor whose case is properly filed in one division of Northern District may, under BLR 1070-1, file in another division in the District in which the case of an affiliate is pending.
BK 09-40697 Doc No. 9 03.20.2009 MHM Cavalli v. Cavalli;
(BAPCPA amendments to §§523(a)(5) and (a)(15) strengthened Congressional policy favoring enforcement of family obligations by rendering all support and property division obligations nondischargeable);
AP 08-6338; 03.19.2009 MHM Tulsa Dynaspan, Inc. v. Evilsizer;
(Dischargeability: Obligations arising from state court judgment regarding Debtor's conduct of siphoning corporate funds and redirecting them to another corporate entity owned by Debtor and co-conspirators were nondischargeable under §523(a)(2) and (a)(6)); entered 3/18/2009; motion to extend time to file appeal entered 3/18/2009; order entered 3/31/2009 extending time for Defendant to file notice of appeal.
AP 08-6298; 03.18.2009 JB In re Thompson;
(Order granting relief from automatic stay to proceed with spouse's claim against real property in divorce proceedings.)
BK 08-81673-BJ (Docket #58) 03.13.2009 JB In re Wyckoff,
Motion to reopen denied. Required documents not filed pursuant to § 521(a) and §521(i).
BK 08-82629-JB, (Docket #26) 03.12.2009 PWB In re Three Rivers Companies LLC,
Order granting motions to transfer venue to the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia pursuant to 28 USC 1412 based on interest of justice and convenience of the parties. Substantial pending litigation in West Virginia, location of real estate in West Virginia, involvement of local state agencies, and the lack of contacts with Georgia warranted transfer of venue.
BK 09-61430 Doc. No. 51 03.12.2009 JEM Sean Eric Goodwin;
Debtor moved for a waiver of the requirement that he complete a course on financial management on the ground of a disability under section 109(h)(4) – he is in prison and unable to take such a course. The Court denied the motion. Being unable is not the same thing as being disabled. “‘[D]isability’ refers to a medical condition and not to a law of physics that prevents Mr. Goodwin from walking through walls and iron bars.”
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-82704 Doc #:20 03.11.2009 JEM Stalzer, Trustee v. Martin;
Motion for default judgment denied service was made in one envelope addressed to: Mr. Tom Martin Mrs. Judy Martin Mrs Martin was entitled to her own copy of the summons and complaint. She was not served, since the first name on the envelope was her husband’s, and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction over her.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 08-06533 Doc #:9 03.04.2009 JEM Antonio Bernard Bates;
The Court dismissed the case on the Trustee’s motion but denied a creditor’s motion to dismiss with prejudice for the following reasons. (1) the motion was coupled with an objection to confirmation and counsel for movant announced a “109(g) objection” at the calendar call; (2) counsel for debtor announced no opposition to the “objection,” but no one referred to the motion; and (3) counsel failed to present an order for over two months.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-79346 Doc #:17 03.03.2009 PWB Townson v. Loftin,
Order setting hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Although the statement in the affidavit of counsel that the Defendant “may have Alzheimer’s Disease” raises the possibility that the Defendant may be incompetent, this possibility alone does not preclude a finding of competency for purposes of Rule 55(b)(2). Instead, in the absence of evidence of competence, the proper inquiry is whether a conservator or guardian has been appointed for the Defendant by a probate court because the absence of such an appointment raises a presumption of competency under Georgia law. Although the Court concluded that Rule 55(b)(2) does not impose upon a moving party an independent duty to investigate a defendant’s competency, the Plaintiff has raised the issue of the defendant’s competency. To demonstrate the existence of the presumption in this proceeding in which the Plaintiff has raised the issue of the Defendant’s mental status, the Plaintiff may establish that, in the appropriate probate court, no record of guardianship or conservatorship proceedings with respect to the Defendant exists
AP No. 08-4069, [Doc. No. 10]. 02.25.2009 JEM Miami Entertainment, Inc.
In a Chapter 11 case, a bank moved for stay relief with respect to property that may have significant equity. The debtor and the bank then presented a consent order compromising the dispute pursuant to which the stay would be lifted if Debtor failed to make certain payments. Because the movant failed to serve notice of the proposed compromise (or the motion) on creditors as required by Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a), the Court denied the motion.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-79618 Doc#32 02.25.2009 JEM Miami Entertainment, Inc.
In a Chapter 11 case, a bank moved for stay relief with respect to property that may have significant equity. The debtor and the bank then presented a consent order compromising the dispute pursuant to which the stay would be lifted if Debtor failed to make certain payments. Because the movant failed to serve notice of the proposed compromise (or the motion) on creditors as required by Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a), the Court denied the motion.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-79618 Doc#32 02.25.2009 JEM Miami Entertainment, Inc.
In a Chapter 11 case, a bank moved for stay relief with respect to property that may have significant equity. The debtor and the bank then presented a consent order compromising the dispute pursuant to which the stay would be lifted if Debtor failed to make certain payments. Because the movant failed to serve notice of the proposed compromise (or the motion) on creditors as required by Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a), the Court denied the motion.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-79618 Doc#32 02.23.2009 JEM Thomas McElroy
The Court limited no-look compensation to Debtors' counsel in case 2 filed a few days after case 1 was dismissed based on a "surprise" that counsel should have anticipated. Because case 2 was merely a much simpler version of case 1, counsel's efforts to obtain even greater compensation in case 2 required proof of value of services.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
09-62362 Doc#15 02.17.2009 PWB In re Hunt,
Duties of attorney representing debtor in case filed in improper venue upon transfer of case. Where attorney filed chapter 13 case for GA resident in Chattanooga and case was subsequently transferred to Northern District of Georgia, attorney sought to withdraw and debtors sought substitution of new counsel. The Court granted both motions, noting that the motion to withdraw would not have been filed absent client consent to substitution. The Court further observed that if a lawyer files a case for a debtor in an improper district, the lawyer mus be prepared to deal with the consequences of transfer to the proper district if it occurs. If the lawyer who files a case transferred to this district is not a member of the Court’s bar and the client does not retain substitute counsel who promptly appears in the case, the lawyer must file an application to appear pro hac vice in the Northern District of Georgia. Further, the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 329(b) permit the Court to inquire as to the reasonableness of fees charged by an attorney for a debtor who files a case in a district in which venue is not proper.
BK 08-44335 Doc. No. 43 02.10.2009 JB Roswell Holdings, LLC v. Peterson (In re: Peterson),
(Order granted judgment on the pleadings making state court judgment for slander of title nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) )
AP 08-6088, docket no. 14, 02.09.2009 MGD Strickland v. Barr,
Denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss when Plaintiffs had insufficient notice of Defendant’s bankruptcy case and was therefore not limited by the Rule 4007(c) deadline for filing complaints.
08-09017 (Docket No. 7) 02.06.2009 PWB Duke Realty Limited Partnership v. North Metro Mill Work Distributors, Inc. (In re Manis Lumber Co.)
Retroactive Rejection of Unexpired Lease and Amount Due Under 365(d)(3). Held: (1) Equitable considerations permit retroactive approval of an unexpired lease as of a date when the landlord is in substantially the same position that it would be if the bankruptcy court had approved rejection on that date. A landlord is ordinarily in such a position on the date when it has received unequivocal notice of the estate’s intent to reject the lease and when it has the opportunity to obtain possession of the premises and to commence the reletting process. In this case, that date is ten days after the filing of the motion, in the absence of any indication that the debtor in possession had affirmatively indicated that the landlord could have possession at an earlier time. (2) The pro rata approach best reflects the Congressional purpose of § 365(d)(3) and, therefore, rent is due on a pro rata basis through April 20.
BK 08-40398 Doc. No. 353 02.02.2009 MGD Titan Financial Group II, LLC et al v. Delta Family Partnership, L.P. et al,
Granting Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint. Permitting Plaintiff to join additional defendants when Plaintiff alleged that the proposed defendants received proceeds from fraudulent transfers made by the original defendants. Permitting Plaintiff to amend and add claims when there was no prejudice to Defendants because Plaintiff still had time to initiate new proceedings against Defendants.
06-06400 (Docket No. 48) 01.30.2009 WHD Israel v. United States Dept of Education (In re Israel),
(granting defendant's motion to compel debtor to respond to discovery regarding her postdischarge financial condition, as such information is relevant to a determination of whether the debtor's student loan should be discharged as an undue hardship).
AP 08-1701, docket no. 31, 01.26.2009 MGD Citrico International Limited v. Citrico Inc.,
Granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment when the undisputed evidence showed that Defendant had received payments on a debt properly owed to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff, as a co-obligor, paid off debts that were traceable to Defendant’s use of credit. Denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment when Plaintiff’s exhibits did not demonstrate the amount of inter-company debt Plaintiff claimed.
AP 05-06589 (Docket No. 52) 01.12.2009 PWB Kendall Electric, Inc. v. Black (In re Black);
Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on 523(a)(4) claim. Plaintiff’s Michigan default judgment (for violation of Michigan Building Contract Fund Act) not entitled to issue preclusive effect in dischargeability proceeding because neither federal law nor Michigan law would give preclusive effect to a default judgment based on a “true default” where there was no participation by the defendant. As to merits of the 523(a)(4) claim, the Plaintiff had failed to establish necessary element of MBCFA in order for court to determine that debt was a trust fund debt. As a result, summary judgment inappropriate at this time.
AP No. 07-6409-PWB, Doc. No. 13 01.09.2009 PWB In re Lary,
Order denying Debtor’s amendment to petition. Individual chapter 7 debtor’s amendment denied to extent it seeks to substitute corporation as a debtor in this case. Although Bankruptcy Rule 1009 permits liberal amendment to pleadings, a bankruptcy case cannot be amended to change the identity of a debtor after the entry of the order for relief.
BK 08-86694 Doc. No. 9 12.29.2008 REB Atlanta Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Isaac W. Swofford (In re Isaac W. Swofford);
(11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7012, nondischargeability of debt (applicability re breach of contract claim))
AP 08-2053 12.11.2008 MGD In re: Charles S. Alba and Susan K. Alba, Debtors,
Denying Creditor’s motion for relief from stay when Creditor failed to establish a prima facia case showing that Creditor held a valid security interest in Debtors’ property. The Creditor’s only evidence of a possible security interest included an unsigned security agreement marked “copy,” a signed loan agreement that referred to the existence of separate documents creating security interests, and the loan officer’s testimony that he remembered the Debtors signing the security agreement. The Court found insufficient evidence of the Debtors’ intent to create a security interest in favor of Creditor in Debtors’ personal property.
BK 08-72093 (Docket No. 61) 12.01.2008 JEM Dugan v. Sea Products, Inc.
Following trial, These findings of fact and conclusions of law provide a detailed factual and legal analysis of the Defendant’s ordinary course of business and new value defenses under section 547(c)(2) and (4) in this preference action. This document also discusses the basis for awarding pre-judgment interest on the amount of avoided preferences.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 06-06498-jem Doc #:46 11.25.2008 MGD Charles Michael Vaughn, Debtor,
Denying Debtor’s exemptions in a watch and a boat, which Debtor concealed from the Chapter 7 Trustee, based on the Court’s authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to prevent abuse of the bankruptcy process. Also denying Trustee’s request to surcharge Debtor’s remaining exemptions to cover the administrative costs incurred by the estate as a result of Debtor’s concealment. The Bankruptcy Code provides specific circumstances for using a Debtor’s exempt property to satisfy administrative expenses, and provides specific remedies for a debtor’s failure to turnover estate property, but the circumstances of Debtor’s case did not justify using the Court’s equity power to grant a surcharge.
08-64060 (Docket No. 152) 11.24.2008 JEM Dugan v Graphic Advantage, Inc.
On motion for summary judgment in preference action, Court denied motion in part with respect to the affirmative defense of new value under section 527(c)(4).
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 06-06479-jem Doc #:25 11.19.2008 JB In re MB Properties, LLC;
The debtor was a corporation and under Bankruptcy Rule 9001(5), the debtor was defined as any and all officers, members or persons in control. Debtor’s principals fell within the scope of the definition of “debtor” pursuant to Rule 9001(5) and could be examined under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 when the Court so ordered.
BK 08-61492 Doc#24 11.18.2008 MGD Linda Coty Bullock, Debtor,
Denying Creditor’s motion to dismiss case and denying Creditor’s motion to validate foreclosure sale, based on the inapplicability of 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2). Although Debtor’s prior case was dismissed after Creditor had filed a motion for relief from stay, that case was a Chapter 13 case for which Debtor was ineligible, Creditor sought to have Debtor’s prior case converted to a Chapter 11, and Debtor had extensive equity in property securing Creditor’s debt. Therefore, Debtor’s dismissal of the Chapter 13 case was not in response to Creditor’s motion for relief from stay, the subsequent Chapter 11 filing did not represent the harm that 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2) is intended to remedy, and the bankruptcy estate was best served by preserving equity in Debtor’s property.
08-43724 (Docket No. 13) 11.17.2008 JB In re Carlos Ramos Henry;
(11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a), 727; Part VII Fed. R. Bankr. P. (Creditor’s letter which alleges Debtor is hiding assets and objects to discharge and dischargeability of a judgment is construed as a motion to extend the time to file and serve a proper complaint in accordance with Part VII of the Fed. R. Bankr. P.)
Case No. 08-75452 Doc#15 11.14.2008 PWB Maxine Ewing v. United States of America (In re Ewing),
(Order denying Debtor’s Motion for Contempt for Violation of the Automatic Stay by the Internal Revenue Service/United States of America. IRS’ setoff of 2007 prepetition federal tax refund against 1996 prepetition federal income tax liability pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6402(a) did fell within the exception of 362(b)(26) and did not violate the automatic stay. Further, IRS has discretion to determine how such overpayments are applied.
08-60367 Doc#41 11.10.2008 JEM Gail Celeste Green
The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to confirmation of Debtor’s plan, which provides for a term of 3 years, contending that the gross income of the non-debtor spouse should be included in calculating the applicable commitment period because section 1325(b)(4)(A)(ii) refers to the “current monthly income of the debtor and debtor’s spouse combined.” For a variety of reasons, the Court disagreed, holding that a non-debtor spouse has no “current monthly income” as that term is defined in section 101(10A).
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-67270 Doc #31 11.05.2008 WHD In re Bolar,
(order recharacterizing claim as nonpriority unsecured claim for marital property settlement and overruling objection to confirmation pursuant to section 1322(a)(2), after concluding that debt owed to debtor's ex-spouse was not in the nature of alimony or support).
BK 08-10350 Doc#49 10.28.2008 MHM In re Farris ;
(Denial of motion for reconsideration of dismissal order);
BK. 04-95802; 10.28.2008 JEM Dugan v. Golden Chair
Court denied in part motion for summary judgment in preference action. Plaintiff failed to show that transfers by check to "GoldenChair/Capital Factors." were made to or for the benefit of Defendant Golden Chair. For purposes of motion, the Court was constrained to construe the slash as “or,’ thereby leaving open the factual question of whether Golden Chair received or derived benefit from transfers not deposited in its bank account.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 06-06498 Doc #:46 10.24.2008 JEM The Adason Group. LLC
A creditor and the debtor agreed to an examination of the debtor, though no contested matter had been commenced. The creditor filed a “Notice of Rule 2004 Examination,” seeking certain documents. The Debtor filed an objection to the scope of document production. The Court held that the notice was insufficient to obligate Debtor to produce documents because creditor failed to move for and obtain an order requiring Debtor to appear for a Rule 2004 examination.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-72984 Doc#20 10.21.2008 JB In re Foremam;
Reaffirmation Agreements - Court does not have authority to allow debtor to rescind a reaffirmation agreement unless debtor gives timely notice of the rescission to the creditor.
Case No. 08-67230 Doc#25 10.16.2008 MHM In re Toweh ;
(Debtor's motion to reopen granted: Debtor allowed to file a reaffirmation agreement "made" before the discharge was entered);
BK. 07-81635 10.16.2008 MHM UST v. Bahamundi ;
(Denial of motion for reconsideration of order denying UST's motion to dismiss because UST failed to satisfy burden of proof);
BK 08-69596; 10.14.2008 WHD Watts v. Crane Grading Company,
(granting summary judgment to trustee on complaint to avoid preferential transfer).
AP 05-1127 Doc# 20 10.14.2008 MGD Gordon v. US Department of Education,
Summary Judgment for Debtor, finding an undue hardship and discharging Debtor’s student loan debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Debtor was 62 years old, had a history of health problems, had limited education, lacked stable employment, and had attempted to pay her student loan debts through the years.
07-09049 (Docket No. 36) 10.13.2008 MHM In re Gish ;
Order directing DA to turnover prepetition retainer as property of the estate);
bankruptcy case No. 07-74427; 10.10.2008 MHM In re Codjoe ;
(Debtor presented insufficient information to show she is entitled to waiver of filing fee); Case was dismissed by order entered 10/28/08.
bankruptcy case No. 08-76964; 10.10.2008 MHM In re O'Dell;
(Reaffirmation agreement was "made" pre-discharge when Debtor and the creditor executed the agreement pre-discharge, but Debtor's attorney executed the agreement after entry of the discharge);
BK 08-67027; 10.10.2008 MHM In re Watts;
(motion to extend Rule 4007 bar date was untimely when it was filed one day after last day of previous extension of time; also where no contested matter or adversary proceeding is pending, bankruptcy court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to approve a settlement about dischargeability);
BK 08-69513 10.10.2008 MHM Harris v. Pullen;
(stay pending appeal denied where movant failed to offer to post supersedeas bond and failed to show likelihood of success on appeal and failed to show irreparable injury);
BK 07-65415; 10.06.2008 PWB HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Harry W. Pettigrew, Chapter 7 Trustee (In re Southstar Funding, LLC),
(Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying Trustee’s motion for summary judgment. Debtor held legal title to loan in trust for the benefit of the Plaintiff, its equitable owner and, as a result, the loan is not property of the Debtor’s estate. Prepetition transaction did not effect a transfer of anything more than bare legal title to the Debtor for the purpose of permitting it to sell the loan to another purchaser on behalf of the Plaintiff and to remit the sales proceeds to the Plaintiff; it did not transform the Plaintiff’s ownership interest into a security interest.)
AP 07-6524 Doc#48 10.06.2008 JEM Audrey Small
Motion of Debtor’s counsel to withdraw denied where counsel failed to comply with BLR 9010-5.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-74928 Doc#21 09.30.2008 MHM In re Dean;
(For above-median-income debtors in a Chapter 13 case, "projected disposable income" will be calculated based upon the actual income Ds expect to earn during the term of the plan less the actual projected expenses as calculated under §707(b)(2)(A) and (B), i.e. the form B22C expenses);
BK 07-73132 09.30.2008 MHM Kerr v. Couchell (In re Christou);
(Mere passage of time does not constitute prejudice sufficient to deny motion to amend complaint and to reopen discovery);
AP 07-6609 09.29.2008 CRM In re Tennyson,
Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation; (Confirming a 36-month plan for an above-median income debtor over Trustee’s § 1325(b)(1)(B) objection; holding that with respect to § 1325(b)(1)(B), the applicable commitment period, prescribed in 1325(b)(4) for an above-median income debtor, is irrelevant when the debtor has no projected disposable income);
BK 07-78937 Doc#24 09.29.2008 MGD Spinner v. Cash In A Hurry, LLC,
Judgment for Plaintiff for Truth In Lending Violations on the Motor Vehicle Pawn Contract, 15 U.S.C. § 1632(a), and damages awarded for willful stay violation for the postpetition sale of Debtor’s car, 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) (including emotion distress damages), based on excessive interest rate charged by Defendant which voided the pawn transaction by operation of law, O.C.G.A. § 14-12-131(b), and Defendant lost the automatic forfeiture benefit of the Georgia Pawnshop Act;
06-6415 (Docket No. 34) 09.23.2008 JEM Walton, US Trustee, v. Nelson
Pursuant to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Court denied Chapter 7 Debtor’s discharge for failure to account for approximately $500,000 borrowed from banks using credit card checks. Facts also supported denial of discharge for transferring and concealing property with intent to defraud.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 08-6025 Doc#41 09.18.2008 CRM In re Allied Holdings, Inc. et al.,
(sustaining debtor's objection to claim arising from the sale of a business)
BK 05-12515 Doc#4040 09.08.2008 PWB In re: Employment and compensation of R. Scott Cunningham as counsel for debtors in pending cases.
Employment and Compensation of R. Scott Cunningham as Counsel for Debtors in Pending Cases. Attorney convicted of felonies in the district court and sentenced to prison filed five new bankruptcy cases on the day his incarceration began and failed to withdraw from representation of debtors in 102 Chapter 13 cases, despite inability to represent clients while in prison. Court imposed sanctions in favor of Chapter 13 Trustee and the Clerk's office to compensate for time and expenses incurred on account of attorney's failure to comply with his professional duties.
06-00401 Doc#48 09.04.2008 WHD Redwine v. Sholar, , entered
(denying motion to dismiss complaint objecting to discharge and dischargeability; Court could not take judicial notice of the fact that the plaintiff had previously filed bankruptcy and failed to disclose claim against the defendant-debtor for purposes of establishing defense of judicial estoppel).
AP 08-1013 Doc# 15 08.29.2008 REB In re Yoo Sun Chi,
(Order granting Trustee's motion for summary judgment and denying Debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 727(a)(5)).
AP 06-9069 08.28.2008 MGD Wells Fargo Auto Finance v. Jimmie Lue Smith (In re Jimmie Lue Smith),
Judgment for Debtor; debt owing to assignee car creditor deemed dischargeable when car creditor failed to carry its burden of proof regarding Debtor's intent to deceive and original seller's justifiable reliance at trial; Debtor was co-signor on contract and co-maker on the note; and car creditor sought its debt to be nondischargeable pursuant to Debtor's alleged false representations under § 523(a)(2)(A));
07-6242 (Docket No. 19) 08.22.2008 PWB In re: Joseph Travis Sanders and Hope Lane Sanders - Entered
Court issues show cause order to Chapter 13 debtor's attorney for failure to appear at hearing.
BK 08-40879 Doc#34 08.22.2008 PWB In re: Marvin B. Brooks, II -
Court issues show cause order to Chapter 13 debtor's attorney for failure to appear at hearing.
BK 07-63364 Doc#50 08.18.2008 JB Rojay V. Howell,
(11 U.S.C. § 524(c); Debtor filed pro se motion to reaffirm a debt, but failed to file the Reaffirmation Agreement. Debtor must file the Reaffirmation Agreement before the Court can consider Debtor’s motion to reaffirm and meet the statutory test including that the Reaffirmation Agreement must be made before the discharge is granted; that the creditor make certain disclosures; and that the Reaffirmation Agreement does not impose an undue hardship and is in the best interests of Debtor);
BK 08-71169 Doc#27 08.18.2008 JEM Opteum Financial Services v. RBC Centura Bank
Debtor had obtained two loans secured by real property and then obtained a line of credit secured by the same property. One of the first two loans was thereafter refinanced. After bankruptcy case was filed and stay was lifted as to the real property, holders of the first two loans sued line of credit lender for a declaratory judgment that their liens were senior. Proceeding was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that outcome of proceeding could not affect bankruptcy estate or debtors and hence was not related to the bankruptcy case.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 07-6043 Doc#46 08.12.2008 MHM In re Gresham ;
(The automatic stay render a state court contempt order void even though creditors were not listed in Debtor's bcy petition);
BK 06-60027; 08.12.2008 MHM In re Gresham ;
(The automatic stay render a state court contempt order void even though creditors were not listed in Debtor's bcy petition);
BK 06-60027; 08.12.2008 JB Horn et. al. v. Farley (In re Farley),
(11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6); Rule 55; default judgment under § 523 cannot be granted when complaint does not allege elements of the claim);
AP 07-6312 Doc#21 08.07.2008 MHM In re: Pullen v. Harris;
(Sanctions imposed against creditor who threatened to arrive at Debtors' residence with police and a locksmith)
BK 07-65415 08.07.2008 JB In re Dingley;
(Service in an adversary proceeding on an insured depository institution was not proper);
AP 08-9034 Doc#3 08.04.2008 PWB Antonio Marco Acosta Entered on
Court issues show cause order to Chapter 13 debtor's attorney for failure to appear at hearing.
BK 08-40623 Doc#36 08.01.2008 JB Dennis v. Dennis,
(11 U.S.C. §§ 522(f)(1)(A), 523(a)(5); Debtor’s motion to avoid a lien under § 522(f)(1) is denied. Judicial liens based on domestic support obligations are not avoidable under the lien avoidance statute)
BK 08-69128 Doc#16 07.31.2008 MGD Ragsdale v. Meir Shoshan, et al. (In re Meir Shoshan),
(Conditionally denying Debtor's request for appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent Debtor's son's one-third interest in real property subject to the Chapter 7 Trustee's § 363(b) and (h) motion to sell because Debtor, as legal guardian for his son, could represent the interest of his minor son under Bankruptcy Rule 7017(c), Debtor's identical one-third interest in the property aligned with the interests of his minor son, and Debtor made no allegations that his representation of his son's interest was inadequate; the Court authorized Debtor to appoint a guardian with costs coming from the proceeds of his portion of the sale of the subject real property if Debtor determined his representation of his minor son's interest was inadequate);
08-6057; (Docket No. 17) 07.30.2008 MGD In re Grace Johanna McCarthy;
(Denying pro se Debtor's Motion to Recuse Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455 because Debtor made no substantiated allegations or provided evidence of the Court's favoritism or antagonism, instead Debtor's allegations were in reference to the Court's statements at a hearing regarding applicable burden of proof requirements);
03-64009; (Docket No. 160) 07.30.2008 JEM Southern Value Homes, Inc.
In this case, the court had granted the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to a proof of a priority claim filed by the law firm that represented the debtor in possession in the superceded Chapter 11 case because the court had never authorized the employment of the firm. Former debtor in possession then moved for nunc pro tunc approval of employment of the firm. The Court denied the motion in part because the movant was no longer the debtor in possession, and only a trustee (including a debtor in possession) can seek approval of counsel under section 327.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 03-81907 Doc#156 07.29.2008 MGD Awald, et al. v. Bienvenu;
Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c) based on the Plaintiff's claims "arising in" the underlying bankruptcy proceeding and Plaintiff's failure to prove that the claims could be timely adjudicated in state court; Plaintiff's claims "arise in" the underlying bankruptcy proceeding (In re Halo Technology Holdings, Inc., case numbers 07-50480 through 07-50481, 07-50486 through 50494, 07-50496 (Bankr. D. Conn.)) because the implicated Director and Officer's liability policy was an asset of the bankruptcy estate, with the debtor-in-possession as a named insured, and the proceeds of the policy were also an asset of the bankruptcy estate; the imposition of the automatic stay to any proceeding involving a bankruptcy estate assets would not allow Plaintiff's to timely adjudicate the matter in state court);
07-06582 Doc#28 07.28.2008 JB Fridella v. Renaissance Homeowner Association, Inc.,
(11 U.S.C. § 522 (b) and (f)(1), O.C.G.A. § 44-3-232; Debtor’s motion to avoid lien on her residence is denied. Respondent’s lien appears to be a homeowner association’s statutory lien and such a lien is not avoidable under § 522(f)(1). The lien avoidance statute applies only to certain types of judicial liens or a nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interest in certain types of personal property);
BK 07-70108 Doc#54 07.21.2008 WHD In re Buciarelli,
(order finding violation of the automatic stay, but awarding no damages because debtor demonstrated no injury).
BK 07-13114-whd, docket number 19, 07.18.2008 WHD Chase Bank, NA v. Huynh,
(denying summary judgment on nondischargeability of credit card debt under section 523(a)(2) due to lack of evidence supporting the creditor's claim that the debtor incurred charges without the subjective intent to repay).
AP 07-1026-whd, docket number 19, 07.17.2008 JB In re Johnny Simmons;
(Debtor requested relief or direction with respect to real property in Mississippi purportedly sold at a tax sale by the Town of Liberty, Mississippi for Debtor’s failure to pay property taxes. The Chapter 7 Trustee and counsel for the Town of Liberty and the individual who purportedly bought the property at the tax sale are ordered to appear and show cause why the tax sale should not be declared void)
BK 05-92328 Doc#153 07.16.2008 PWB New Equipment Leasing, Inc. v. Sideris (In re Sideris),
Order granting Chapter 13 Debtor’s motion to dismiss 523(a)(6) complaint for failure to state claim. Section 523(a)(6) claim not excepted from a chapter 13 discharge and facts as alleged did not state claim under 1328(a)(4).
AP No. 08-6322 07.16.2008 JEM First Centurion Receivables Mgmnt, Inc.
Motion to use cash collateral in Chapter 11 case denied because the motion was not served pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 9014 and 7004 on creditors alleged to have an interest in cash collateral.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
08-72770 Doc#17 07.14.2008 PWB Glass v. Isotec International, Inc. (In re Southwest Recreational Industries),
Order denying motion to stay post-judgment discovery and collection pending appeal.
AP 05-4066,Doc. No. 84 07.11.2008 CRM Allied Holdings, Inc. v. Volvo Parts North America, Inc.,
(granting summary judgment to debtor and finding that creditor violated section 362(a)(3) by receiving overpayments postpetition and refusing to return the overpayments upon the debtor's request; rejecting the creditor's contention that it was entitled to retain the overpayments as recoupment of its prepetition claim).
AP 06-10130-crm, docket number 73, 07.09.2008 WHD Progressive v. Mann (In re Parker),
(dismissing insurance company's complaint for declaration that insurance company was not required to defend the trustee in litigation against the estate because the trustee was not the named insured under the policy and the debtor, who was the named insured, was no longer a named defendant in the litigation).
AP 08-1002-whd, docket number 17 07.09.2008 JB ilshire Credit Corp., as Servicer for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. v. Brown (In re Brown),
(The Court needs more facts to determine whether the exception to the automatic stay found in § 362(b)(22) applies. This is the exception with respect to the continuation of any eviction or dispossessory proceeding involving residential property when the landlord has obtained a judgment for possession of the property before the date the bankruptcy case is filed);
BK 08-69728 Doc#14 07.07.2008 PWB In re John Leroy Howard and Nohemi Beltran Howard,
Order (1) denying Litton Loan Servicing, LP’s motion to declare tax sale void and (2) retroactively annul the stay. During the pendency of the Debtors’ case, Rockdale County Georgia conducted a tax sale as to the Debtors’ residence at which American Lien Fund, LP was the purchaser. Neither Rockdale County nor ALF had notice of the bankruptcy case. The Debtors had not opposed stay relief by Litton. Litton, the holder of a deed to secure debt on the Debtor’s residence, requested that the Court set aside the tax sale as being void in violation of the stay. ALF sought retroactive annulment of the stay. Held: (1) Litton has standing to seek a determination that an act in violation of the stay is void; (2) the tax sale was not excepted from the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(b)(24) because ALF was not a “good faith purchaser” as contemplated by 549(c); (3) retroactive annulment of the stay to validate the tax sale to the extent valid under state law was warranted. The Court found that the Debtor had no interest in the property and it was of no value to the estate; neither Rockdale County nor ALF had notice of the bankruptcy; and Litton had failed to protects legal and financial interest in the property by recording its interest. Had Litton recorded its assignment, it would have received notice of the tax lien by Rockdale County. Litton’s remedy remained redemption in accordance with Georgia law.
BK 06-61345, Doc. No. 68 07.01.2008 PWB In re Randall Wayne Finney and Patricia Elaine Finney,
Chapter 7 trustee sought excess proceeds resulting from foreclosure of debtors’ residence which were the subject of an interpleader action in Cobb County, Georgia. Cobb County Superior Court attempted to transfer case and interpleader funds to bankruptcy court. Trustee asserted interest derived from stay relief order which provided that excess proceeds from foreclosure should be paid to the chapter 13 trustee for the benefit of the estate. Held: Registry funds retained, but file returned to Cobb County because bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction since no party sought removal of the action. Court found that it was appropriate to permit the superior court, which has concurrent jurisdiction with regard to disputes concerning the funds, to adjudicate issues of entitlement to funds if it deems it appropriate to do so. Court questioned advisability of provision in the stay relief order which provided for excess proceeds to be paid to the [chapter 13] trustee for the benefit of the estate which the chapter 7 trustee relied on for a basis for seeking the funds, noting that even if the trustee had received the surplus funds from the foreclosure sale, the trustee would have had the responsibility to hold them for the benefit of whoever was entitled to them under applicable law; the surplus funds could not become unencumbered property of the estate.
Case No. 05-83587, Doc. No. 89 06.30.2008 JEM McColm v. Michal
Plaintiff moved to compel discovery because Defendants’s response was a copy that did not include their original signatures. The Court denied the motion because revised Civil Rule 34 also does not specifically state that the answers must bear the original signatures and BLR 7026-3(a) directs that the party making discover “shall also retain original discovery material . . . .”
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
06-9036 Doc#111 06.26.2008 JEM Wells Fargo Financial Bank v . Nguyen
Attorney moved for reconsideration of order in which Court denied application for attorney’s fees on ground that Movant and Debtor did not comply with Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c)(a)(A). In denying motion for reconsideration, the Court held that Movant had not alleged or shown any factual basis for imposing sanctions for filing adversary proceeding based on Court’s inherent authority to sanction misconduct.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
07-6656 06.19.2008 JEM Mouzon Enterprises, Inc.
In reopened case, Debtor moved to vacate a consent order allowing claim of Ga. Dept. of Revenue on the ground that the amount allowed was wrong due to an error made by Debtor’s accountant. The Court granted the motion, overruling the position of the GADoR that the motion was untimely under Bankruptcy Rule 9024. Because the consent order merely allowed an agreed sum that the Court did not determine, there was no contest for purposes of Rule 9024.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
05-86016 06.13.2008 WHD Israel v. Direct Loans;
(denying motion to dismiss for lack of service).
AP 08-1701, doc#6 06.13.2008 JB Ragsdale, Trustee v. Ojemeni (In re Ojemeni);
(11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 548; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Trustee’s motion for partial summary judgment on fraudulent conveyance claims (both factual and constructive fraud) and preference claims denied as there are material facts in dispute)
Adv. Pro. No. 07-6412 (Docket #25); 06.10.2008 JEM Wells Fargo Financial Bank v . Nguyen
After Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Defendant’s attorney filed an application for attorney’s fees on the ground that Plaintiff’s claim had no merit. The Court denied the application because (1) Defendant, not his attorney, was the real party in interest and should have been the movant, (2) Defendant had not complied with the safe harbor provision of Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c)(1)(A) and (3) the motion had not been properly served on Plaintiff.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
07-6656 06.10.2008 JEM Merrill Lynch v. Odum
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of an order denying Defendants’ motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel was denied because Defendants failed to show a change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Further the motion was untimely.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
07-9048 06.06.2008 JEM Dugan v. Sea Products, Inc.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine to bar Defendant from introducing evidence on solvency in preference dispute was denied where the pre-trial order showed no issue on solvency, making the motion unnecessary. Defendant’s motion in limine to bar testimony of expert witness because his deposition testimony cast doubt on the extent of his knowledge was denied; such an objection should be made at trial (based on evidence about witness’s qualifications).
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
06-6498 06.06.2008 JEM Mark Brancheau
Under Bankruptcy Rules 7004(b)(3) and 9014, Court lacked personal jurisdiction over corporate respondent to motion to redeem, where the motion was mailed to respondent but not to the attention of a named officer or managing agent.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
08-63576 06.02.2008 WHD In re Cagle, bankruptcy proceeding no. , entered
(ordering granting motion to reconsider order disallowing claim).
07-11689-whd, docket number 30 05.30.2008 JEM In re: Sandra Sheppard
Pro se debtor moved to reopen the case to enable her to sue a lender that had foreclosed on her residence. Motion denied. If the claim had been abandoned by the trustee, as debtor alleged, the Court lacked jurisdiction, and if the claim had not been abandoned, only the trustee could sue on it.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 06-65467 Doc#44 05.29.2008 WHD In re King,
(lifting automatic stay to permit creditor to perform setoff).
BK 08-10892, doc#32 05.25.2008 MHM In re Pullen;
(Ch 13 and §362(c)(3) good faith filing) on appeal to USDC 1:07-CV-1927-RLV.
BK 07-65415 05.23.2008 JEM In re: Merrill Lynch v. Odum
Plaintiff sued Debtors, one of whom had worked for Plaintiff as an account representative, to determine the dischargeability of debt that included debt assigned to Plaintiff by one of its customers. Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel, which had also represented the customer, on the ground that if the amount paid by Plaintiff to the customer for her claims turned out to exceed the amount of any debt owed by Defendants to the customer, Plaintiff might sue the customer to recover the difference. The Court denied the motion because the motion was based on speculation, not an actual conflict, and because Defendants had not timely filed a motion to disqualify, having raised the issue in January 2007 in state court litigation.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 07-9048 Doc#40 05.23.2008 CRM In re Chandler;
(Creditor’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Debtor’s Motion to Reopen granted as Debtor was barred by res judicata from relitigating the dischargeability of the debt it owed to the creditor as the matter had been fully litigated in state court)
BK 02-65783 Doc#58 05.22.2008 JEM In re: CEP Holdings v. Kimbrell
In 74 adversary proceedings, Debtors in possession sued numerous individuals, a few of whom were insiders of Debtors, to recover preferences and fraudulent transfers. The proceedings were consolidated for the purpose of trying the issue of whether Debtors had engaged in a Ponzi scheme. The Court found that the Debtors had promised public investors extraordinary returns but had no business or assets that could fund the promised returns and that they operated a Ponzi scheme.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 07-6382 Doc# 54 05.16.2008 MGD Evans-Lambert v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp.,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied based on the Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy Rule 9023's standard, and the Court’s previous Summary Judgment Order deeming Plaintiff’s student loan debt nondischargable remains unchanged
AP 07-5001 Doc#43 05.12.2008 JEM In re: Dugan v. Leather Bella
Motion for leave to amend complaint pursuant to Civil Rule 15(c) to add new defendant denied, where plaintiff made no showing that new defendant had knowledge of the pendency of the adversary proceeding during the 120-day period following its commencement. No presumption of receipt of process arose where the envelopes addressed to an individual who was an officer of the defendant sought to be added were mailed to an address that the existing defendant, the officer and the defendant sought to be added had vacated 9 months prior to the commencement of the proceeding.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 06-6500 Doc$30 05.07.2008 JEM In re: CEP Holdings v. Zavala
Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was denied because service of process on the individual Defendant at a post office box did not comply with Bankr. Rule 7004(b)(1)
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 07-6498 Doc#25 05.07.2008 JEM In re: Merrill Lynch v. Odum
Non-parties to adversary proceeding moved for protective order to quash subpoenas duces tecum and to bar their depositions on the ground that they were not parties, there had been no showing that any information they might have would be relevant and plaintiff had not shown a substantial need for their testimony. Motion denied as without merit to the point of being friviolous.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 07-9048 Doc#34 05.05.2008 WHD Howell v. Noble,
denying motion to dismiss complaint for avoidance of fraudulent conveyance).
AP 07-1060 doc#19 05.01.2008 MGD In re Sims;
Court’s sua sponte Order provides Debtor with an extended period to file the requisite § 1328(a) certificate in order to obtain a discharge. Debtor has completed his plan earlier than expected due to his particular circumstances, and the Court deemed that additional time and an Order directing the filing of the Certificate was reasonable based on this relatively new BAPCPA requirement for discharge.);
BK 06-62756; Doc#48 04.18.2008 PWB National Income Tax Service, Inc. v. Dorsey (In re Dorsey),
Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s objection to discharge claims under §§ 727(a)(2) and (a)(4) fail to state claims for relief. Complaint’s alleged facts that the debtor, behind on her mortgage payments, executed a warranty deed conveying her residence to the Plaintiff; that Plaintiff agreed to pay the past due mortgage balance; that the debtor agreed to lease the property back for twelve months; and that the debtor defaulted on rent payments to the Plaintiff and then filed a bankruptcy case on eve of eviction proceedings commenced by the Plaintiff, are insufficient to support a finding of intent to hinder, delay or defraud under § 727(a)(2). Debtor’s disclosure of incorrect social security number which was later corrected and multiple disclosures in schedules regarding residence do not support finding of “false oath” under § 727(a)(4) where Plaintiff has offered no evidence of intent.
AP 07-6666 (Doc. No. 5) 04.18.2008 PWB In re Coates,
Order and Notice directing eCast Settlement Corporation to file statement explaining why it failed to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(e)(2); what procedures it follows to insure compliance with Rule 3001(e)(2); and the reasons that the amount it states in its unsecured proof of claim exceeds the amount in the alleged assignor’s claim.
BK 06-71205 Doc#38 04.18.2008 CRM Layng v. Mary Brooks (In re BCC Systems, Inc.);
(Trustees’s Objection to Claim and Motion to Avoid pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §544 is denied as the Trustee’s strong-arm powers under § 544(a)(1) did not give him priority over the Respondent’s unrecorded equitable interest in the vehicles at issue.);
BK 05-84208 Doc#62 04.17.2008 MGD Free at Last Bail Bonds v. Franklin-Graham;
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted based on a finding of non-dischargeability pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(B), and Debtor’s discharge was denied under § 727(a)(4)(A));
BK 05-06585 Doc#43 04.17.2008 JB In re Rafael Borrero, Jr. and Amina Nicole Borrero;
(11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B); Debtors’ motion to extend automatic stay is unnecessary and denied as the statutory section is inapplicable. Although Debtors had a previous Chapter 7 case pending within the preceding one-year period, Debtors received a discharge and that case was closed rather than dismissed)
BK 08-65660 Doc#14 04.15.2008 JEM In re: Brian Bennett
Chapter 7 Trustee moved for order authorizing the Rule 2004 examination of a law firm that closed on behalf of the lender a real estate transaction to which Debtors were parties. The Trustee did not serve the Debtors with the motion and was not required to by the Bankruptcy Rules. The law firm objected, citing Ga. Code Ann. § 7-1-360 that requires a financial institution to provide its customer an opportunity to object to the production of confidential information. The Court granted the motion, directed service of the order on Debtors and delayed the examination for two weeks to give Debtors time to object.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 07-77463 Doc#66 04.15.2008 WHD In re Sherrod,
(overruling creditor's good faith objection to confirmation of Debtor's chapter 13 plan).
BK 07-12288 Doc# 28 04.14.2008 JB Detroit Phone Card, Inc. v. Verizon Business Global, LLC, Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC (In re CNS Communications, LTD);
(Defendants filed motion to dismiss complaint which sought imposition of constructive trust on funds being held by one of Defendants. The Chapter 7 Trustee claimed no interest in the funds, and the Court concludes it is without jurisdiction to decide this dispute among non-debtor parties. The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to the parties pursuing any claims and remedies they have in another forum)
AP 07-6681 Doc#25 04.10.2008 JEM In re: Eddie Milledge
Movants sought stay relief alleging only that Debtor had another case pending within one year of the filing of the present case and that they were entitled to an order under section 362(c)(3)(A). Motions denied. The condition that no stay exists with respect to property of the debtor is not congruent with the condition that no stay exists with respect to property of the estate. Argument that motions should be granted because Trustee did not oppose them was without merit. The motions failed to allege facts that entitled them to the relief requested.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 08-62839 Doc#26 04.08.2008 MHM In re Partain;
(Corporate name included as "DBA" on petition of individual stricken; an individual cannot "do business as" a corporation)
BK 07-79992 04.06.2008 WHD Barnette v. Bankers Financial Services,
(granting motion for default judgment on defendant' counterclaim).
AP 07-1068 Doc# 6 04.04.2008 PWB Galleria Investments, LLC v. Hong Duck (In re Galleria Investments, LLC),
Contract for purchase of debtor’s real estate pursuant to § 363, executed in accordance with bidding procedures by “stalking horse” bidder who was also successful bidder at auction sale, provided for earnest money of $ 1 million and for the debtor to retain the earnest money as liquidated damages if the stalking horse bidder defaulted. The stalking horse bidder failed to close, and the debtor sold the property to the back-up bidder for $100,000 less. The stalking horse bidder contends that the debtor is not entitled to retain the earnest money because the liquidated damages provision is an unenforceable penalty under Georgia law. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that a bidder participating in a bankruptcy sale is bound by the orders governing the sale and that the liquidated damages provision is enforceable as a judicially approved material term of the sale. Alternatively, the court ruled that the liquidated damages provision is not a penalty under Georgia law. The court declines to decide, on motions for summary judgment, other issues relating to the debtor’s alleged defaults that, the stalking horse bidder contends, excused its performance.
BK 06-62557 Doc#220 04.03.2008 MHM In re Robinson;
(Electronic service upon a Registered User of CM/ECF is sufficient under Bankruptcy Rule )
BK 07-68960 04.02.2008 MHM In re Center of Life Apostolic Ministries, Inc.;
(Chapter 11 case dismissed with 270-day bar to refiling)
BK 08-62137 04.01.2008 PWB Paige v. Byrider Sales of Indiana S, Inc. (In re Paige),
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to the Debtor’s non-core Truth in Lending Act claim for review de novo by the District Court. Court found that the creditor’s disclosure of the contract’s payment schedule (semi-monthly payments with only the starting date of the semi-monthly payments)does not comply with the requirement to disclose “the number, amount, and due dates or period of payments scheduled to repay the total of payments” as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a)(6). However, the court found the defendant in good faith relied on Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.18(g), and the accompanying Commentary of the Federal Reserve Board in its disclosure of payment terms and that based upon the defendant’s reliance on Regulation Z and the Board’s Commentary, it is shielded from liability pursuant to the good faith defense of 15 U.S.C. § 1640(f).
AP 06-6401 Doc# 36 03.27.2008 MGD SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Catherine Lam,
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s claims for nondischargeability were insufficient as a matter of law where there was no evidence that Defendant acted wilfully and maliciously or intended to deceive Plaintiff.
BK 06-09096 (Docket No. 36) 03.27.2008 MHM Williams v. Carson;
(Alleging fraud with particularity in complaint to determine dischargeability not required; Plaintiff's state court default judgment in case in which Plaintiff did not allege fraud does not collaterally estop Plaintiff from seeking a nondischargeability determination based on §523(a)(2));
AP 07-9050 03.27.2008 MHM Ultra Group of Companies, Inc. v. Porter;
(where Defendant had signed the settlement agreement but refused to sign consent motion or consent order to approve the settlement, Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement granted);
AP 07-6674 03.27.2008 PWB Ronald L. Glass, as Chapter 7 Trustee of Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc. v. Isotec International,
The Defendant admitted receipt of preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) and raised the ordinary course of business defense of § 547(c)(2). The payments were later than 88% of the payments in the prepreference period, but not as late as a few. Under the pre-BAPCPA law that applies in this proceeding, the Defendant must show that the transfers were in the ordinary course of business as between the debtor and the transferee, § 547(c)(2)(B), and that the transfers were made according to ordinary business terms, § 547(c)(2)(C). The Court found that the payments at issue were made according to ordinary business terms in the industry and thus met the (c)(2)(C) requirement. With regard to the (c)(2)(B) requirement, the Court determined that preferential payments within the historical range that vary significantly from the typical payment pattern during the historical period are ordinary for purposes of § 547(c)(2)(B) only if the reasons for the variation in both the historical and preference periods are similar. Because the defendant had not shown the reasons for the variations from the typical pattern, the Court determined that the defendant could not invoke the ordinary course defense. The Court exercised its discretion to deny prejudgment interest requested by the trustee based on the defendant’s credible, good faith affirmative defense that, although not successful, nevertheless presented a close and difficult question for resolution.
AP 05-4066 Doc # 53. 03.26.2008 MHM NATCA v. Davenport; ;
(In defalcation AP, Debtors cannot set off prior contributions to fund against the defalcated amount);
AP 05-9179 03.26.2008 MHM Zohbe v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
(In this Truth-in-Lending-Act ( TILA) action, notice of right of rescission was not misleading);
AP 07-6194; 03.25.2008 CRM Johnson v. SouthTowne Motors of Stone Mountain (In re Johnson);
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; Plaintiff sought statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1640(a)(2)(A)(i) under the Truth In Lending Act, and its implementing regulation, 12 C.F.R. 226, for Defendant's alleged failure to comply with disclosure requirements. Defendant's disclosures were sufficiently "clear and conspicuous" and no violation under 15 U.S.C. 1638(a), 12 C.F.R. 226.17(a)(1) and 226.4(d)(3) was found.
AP 05-6393 03.25.2008 MGD Nicole F. Evans-Lambert v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., et. al,
Order Granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Debtor, a practicing attorney, failed to satisfy any prong of the Brunner test; Debtor failed to produce any evidence to support her claims that she would be unable to maintain a minimal standard of living if she were required to repay her student loans or that she made a good faith effort to repay her student loans.
BK 07-05001 (Docket No. 36) 03.24.2008 MHM Miller v. Gem Financial Services, Inc.,
(Pawned property that remains unsold on the petition date gains benefit of §108 to extend deadline to redeem, but when the §108 period expires, the property is no longer property of the estate or subject to turnover).
AP 06-9063 03.24.2008 JB Robert S. Rosenthal;
(11 U.S.C. §§ 1308, 1325(a)(9); Confirmation of Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was denied. A condition for confirmation is that debtor file all applicable Federal, State, and local tax returns for all taxable periods ending during the four year period ending on the date of the filing of the petition which Debtor had failed to do)
BK 07-66912 Doc#53 03.20.2008 MGD In re Monica Y. Goggins,
Order Overruling Drive Financial Services’s Objection to a Post-Confirmation Modification of Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan. Finding that a change in circumstances existed to justify modification of Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan, the Court allowed Debtor to modify her plan to change the treatment of Drive’s unsecured claim.
BK 05-42962 03.05.2008 WHD In re Walker,
(finding that debtors' case should be dismissed as an abuse under section 707(b)(3)).
BK 05-15010 doc#49 03.04.2008 JEM In re: McComb v. Michal
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint seeking revocation of their discharges on the grounds that Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to alledge the proceeding was core and that Plaintiff lacked standing. Motion denied. Complaint alleged sufficient facts to show jurisdiction. Standing argument was based on assertion that Plaintiff is not a creditor of debtors, but Plaintiff alleges she is, and motion to dismiss cannot be granted unless a defendant can show the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling her to relief.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 06-9036 Doc#67 02.29.2008 WHD Falla v. Tolbert, , entered
(dischargeability of debt pursuant to section 523(a)(6), (a)(4), and (a)(2)).
AP 06-1701, Doc# 31 02.29.2008 WHD Georgia Lottery Corporation v. Ingram;
(dischargeability of debt pursuant to section 523(a)(4)).
AP 07-1013 Doc# 34 02.27.2008 JEM In re: Walton v. Nelson
Defendant moved to dismiss adversary proceeding objecting to his discharge on the ground it was “unfounded” and failed to state a claim for relief. Motion denied. “A complaint may not be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ‘unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Defendant could not show from the complaint alone that Plaintiff could not prove facts to support the claim.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 08-6025 Doc#7 02.21.2008 JEM In re: Wells Fargo v. Nguyen
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied, even though the complaint had only minimal factual allegations. All that is required is that the complaint contain a "statement calculated to give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
AP 07-6656 Doc#11 02.21.2008 JEM In re: Marquisha Amir
Unopposed motion to vacate dismissal order was denied where debtor’s counsel waited over four months to present a proposed order granting the motion in disregard of BLR 9013-2(a).
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 04-80505 Doc#27 02.13.2008 MGD In re Mohammed A. Faiyaz,
Order Denying Dr. Suraiya Mateen’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Dr. Suraiya Mateen’s Motion to Compel Trustee to Deposit Funds into the Court’s Registry. Notice of appeal filed February 25, 2008.
BK 01-64875 (Docket No. 202) 02.13.2008 JEM In re: Marshall Wallace
Movant submitted proposed order that included an award of attorney’s fees and costs, but the motion did not allege that Movant incurred such expenses and did not allege the amount of any fees. Further the contract attached to the motion contained no provision for attorney’s fees on the facts alleged. That portion of the motion was highly improper and the motion was DENIED in part with respect to fees and expenses.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 07-81755 02.11.2008 REB Franklin D. Sparks, Jr. v. Georgia Dep't of Revenue (In re Franklin D. Sparks, Jr.),
(11 USC Section 523(a)(1), dischargeability of income tax liability).
BK 04-30380 02.08.2008 MHM In re Dye;
(denial of motion to stay proceedings in the bankruptcy case based upon debtor's request for inquiry by UST);
BK 06-71024 02.05.2008 REB In re Scott Lamar Chambers and Mary Jane Chambers,
(11 USC Sections 502(b), 522(f), preclusive effect of lien avoidance regarding treatment of secured claim through Chapter 13 plan and need for objecting to underlying claim).
BK 06-20632 02.04.2008 MHM Peng v. Hill;
(judgment for debtor in objection to discharge because pro se debtor lacked requisite scienter)
AP 05-9147 01.31.2008 JEM In re: Erick Thomas
Motion to vacate dismissal order filed two months after dismissal denied as untimely.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 05-83115 01.30.2008 MGD In re Anthony Nzeribe,
Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Stay.
BK 07-73732 (Docket No. 55) 01.25.2008 JEM In re: Rhodes, Inc.
Objection to claim of Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation on ground that amount of claim is overstated was denied. Claim is not for future payments but rather is presently due, such that court has no authority to recalculate the claim.
BK 04-78434 01.24.2008 PWB In re Turner,
Chapter 7 Trustee avoided prepetition transfer of debtor’s undivided interest in real property and thereafter sought to abandon the interest because of the burden and expense of attempting to market the problem due to title difficulties. A judgment creditor objected. The court concluded that abandonment would not reverse the avoidance of the transfer, that the effect of abandonment is that abandoned property reverts to the debtor, and that the debtor could not claim an exemption in it because he had voluntarily transferred it, and that the judgment lien consequently would, upon abandonment, attach to the undivided interest. Because the judgment lien creditor held substantially all of the debts in the case and had a remedy that could be pursued without burdening the estate, the Court permitted the abandonment. The Order also discusses the effect of the judgment lien on other property of the debtor, concluding that it could not attach to property acquired by the debtor after the filing of the petition or to exempt property.
BK 00-72597 Doc#56 01.18.2008 WHD Watts v. Pride Utility Construction, Inc.,
(on motion for reconsideration, granting trustee's motion for summary judgment as to defendant's ordinary course of business defense).
AP 05-1134, doc#43, 01.17.2008 MGD In re Mohammed A. Faiyaz,
Order Denying Dr. Suraiya Mateen’s Motion to Compel Trustee to Deposit Funds into the Court’s Registry and re-entering the Court’s May 5, 2004 Order. The Court’s May 5th Order was previously remanded by the District Court for erroneous reliance on the doctrine of res judicata where a writ of certiorari was pending before the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Court re-entered its Order in light of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s subsequent denial of the writ of certiorari. Motion for Reconsideration filed January 29, 2008.
BK 01-64875 (Docket No. 198) 01.15.2008 MHM In re Patterson;
(DA in case converted from Ch11 to Ch7 required to turn over prepetition retainer to Trustee; "security retainer" not recognized. Also, value of DA's services did not exceed (or even equal) the amount of the retainer); entered 1/15/08; order denying motion for reconsideration entered 2/4/08; Notice of Appeal filed 2/14/08.
BK 07-61961 01.14.2008 WHD Chase Bank, USA v. Huynh,
(granting motion to deem facts admitted, but denying motion for expenses pursuant Rule 37(c)(2)).
AP 07-1026, doc#16 01.11.2008 PWB In re Rios,
Court discussed duties of attorney with regard to credit briefing requirements of § 109(h).
BK 07-66047 Doc# 37 01.09.2008 JEM In re: Kelvin New
Section 521(i)(3) provides the only means by which a debtor who has not complied with section 521(a)(1) may avoid automatic dismissal as of the 46th day following the petition date. Hence, Debtor’s motion for the Court to “order otherwise” after the 46th day had passed to permit late filing of pay stubs was DENIED.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 07-75092 01.04.2008 MGD Hays v. Nano-Tex, Inc.
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Admission.
BK 06-04134 (Docket No. 53) 01.04.2008 JEM In re: Richard Sullivan
Motion by Debtor’s counsel to withdraw DENIED because counsel failed to strictly comply with BLR 9010-5 dealing with withdrawal.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
BK 06-75803 01.03.2008 MHM In re Pullen;
(Motion to recuse denied)
BK. 07-65415 01.03.2008 MHM In re Pullen;
(bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction while appeal pending to consider matters related to but different from the matter on appeal)
BK 07-65415; 12.18.2007 MGD Regions Bank v. Hart,
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. The facts set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint failed to make out a prima
 |
United States Bankruptcy Court Northern District of Georgia |
||
| Honorable Joyce Bihary Chief Judge |
W. Yvonne Evans |
||