(Defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint for conduct which allegedly violates the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is granted. Defendant’s picketing does not violate any of the provisions of the automatic stay, and thus plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against defendant)
You are here
Opinions
Effective January 1, 2017, Orders in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia designated by the Court as "opinions" will be transmitted to the Government Publishing Office (GPO) and made available to the public at no cost. To view these opinions, click HERE to be transferred to GPO site.
Orders designated as Opinions and issued between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2016 are maintained on this website. Many of these Opinions are not intended for publication and are so designated. Each entry includes the style of the matter, the case number, the date entered on the docket, and a short parenthetical expression of the issue(s) raised. The most recent opinions appear first.
You can narrow your search by judge and/or year below. You can also use the search feature above to search by name, word, or phrase. The single opinions are in PDF text format and may be searched for word, phrase, or date by using “Control F,” the Windows search function available in any Windows application.
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
Defendant’s second motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff failed to respond to defendant’s motion, and defendant showed that plaintiff had failed to file Georgia tax returns for the years 1985 through 1987 and such debt is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(I).
Plaintiff-trustee’s motion for default judgment is granted. Plaintiff’s motion shows that defendant was properly served and that defendant failed to respond. Plaintiff is not entitled to turnover of property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541, but facts she pled are sufficient to entitle her to recover the value of the property transferred under the fraudulent transfer section, 11 U.S.C. § 548.
Debtor’s motion to avoid judgment liens is denied as 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) has no applicability to property acquired after date she filed her bankruptcy petition. However, debtor is protected against such pre-petition judgment liens by 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) which provides that any effort to enforce such a void lien on property acquired after debtor filed her bankruptcy petition would violate the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction.
Plaintiff’s motion to avoid and recover preferential transfers is granted. 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 550(a). Defendant has failed to respond and is deemed not to oppose Plaintiff’s motion. BLR 7007-1. Plaintiff satisfied all elements of a voidable preference. Because defendant did not raise any affirmative defenses in its answer, it is proper to award pre-judgment interest along with post-judgment interest. Any claim asserted by defendant is disallowed pending payment of Plaintiff’s judgment.
Plaintiff’s motion seeking a default judgment that defendant’s debt in the amount of $1,914 for retail charges is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) is denied. The allegations in the complaint which are deemed admitted by defendant’s failure to answer and the insufficient specificity of the factual allegations do not support a finding in plaintiff’s favor. If plaintiff does not amend its complaint within 30 days, the Court will schedule this adversary proceeding for trial.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to determine dischargeability of its debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (a)(6) is granted. Defendant, appearing pro se, did not respond to plaintiff’s motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) allows a court to freely grant leave to amend, and Plaintiff filed the motion within four months of the answer, prior to the entry of a pre-trial order, does not appear to be filed to cause undue delay, and it will not prejudice defendant.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) is granted and defendant’s debt is non-dischargeable. Plaintiff alleged that defendant and her husband made fraudulent representations which deceived plaintiff and caused it to make various investments. Defendant-debtor’s amended response that she lacks sufficient information to deny most of plaintiff’s factual allegations and stating under oath that her statements were true and correct to the best of her information and belief are insufficient to challenge a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff demonstrated that defendant made false representations with an intention to deceive, that plaintiff relied on the misrepresentations, that the reliance was justified, and that plaintiff sustained a loss as a result of the misrepresentations.
Case filed pro se by ineligible individual on behalf of fictitious “trade name” was dismissed.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Movants’ motion to avoid judgment liens pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A) after case was reopened is granted. Respondent Taylor did not file a response or indicate opposition to movants’ motion. Respondent Central Pet’s arguments are without merit. Debtors may amend their schedule of exemptions after a case has been reopened. The correct date for valuing debtors’ interest in their property is the date the petition was filed, and the liens in question, when added to all other liens and to the amount of the debtors’ exemptions, exceeded the value of the debtors’ interest in property and impaired the debtors’ claimed exemptions.