Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1408,Trustee moved to dismiss for improper venue where Debtor filed the case in the Atlanta Division when it should have been filed in the Newnan Division. Motion denied. The venue under § 1408 was proper in this District. The Court has the authority to permit a case filed in the wrong Division to be administered there.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
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)
Creditor sought stay relief for violation of consent order, which was presented and entered just a few days before the creditor claimed a default that preceded the entry of the consent order. The Court vacated the consent order, stating that “To present a consent order that purports to settle a dispute but is in fact a time bomb that will go shortly after it is entered based on acts or omissions that occurred prior to its entry is to undermine confidence in the use of consent orders to settle disputes.”
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Motion for default judgment granted in part. Facts alleged in the complaint satisfied the elements of a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(c).
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Motion of plaintiff to dismiss answer of defendant filed by attorneys lacking authorization to file answer for that defendant was granted where defendant had not ratified the answer. Motion to fine lawyers who filed unauthorized answer was denied. Sanctions payable to the Clerk are the province of the Court and could not be imposed based on a state statute urged by plaintiff.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Asserting that debtors assumed a lease, vehicle lessor moved for allowance of administrative claim based on excess mileage. Neither an order reimposing stay nor the order confirming debtors’ amended plan approved assumption of the lease, where plan provided only that debtors would to “continue post-petition lease payments” and would increase plan payment to trustee by amount of lease when lease ended. Lessor failed to show that the lease provided any benefit to the estate.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Debtor’s application for payment of funds in Court’s registry unclaimed by a creditor was denied where debtor failed to show that the debt had been paid or otherwise satisfied. The mere fact that the funds have not been claimed is irrelevant.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
The automatic stay does not stay a defendant’s motion to dismiss an action brought by a debtor. The question of whether the postpetition dismissal of a prepetition action brought by a debtor binds the trustee is noted but not decided.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
One joint debtor lost her job early in case, thereby reducing debtors’ actual income well below their prepetition “current monthly income.” Chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation, asserting that debtors’ plan failed to propose to pay their projected disposable income (based on prepetition CMI) to unsecured creditors. Court denied objection. Section 1325(b) permits a bankruptcy court to adjust CMI to approximate the income a debtor will receive during the plan term in order to better insure that a debtor pays what the debtor is able to pay but is not required to pay what is impossible to pay.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pro se debtor’s fourth case in five years was dismissed with prejudice under section 109(g) where debtor raised issue adjudicated in third case and failed to attend meeting of creditors.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Prior to bankruptcy, debtors refinanced residential mortgage loan with existing lender after creditor obtained a judgment against one debtor. Debtors exempted residence. Judgment creditor sued lender contending that its lien had priority over lender’s lien with respect to the increase in the amount of mortgage debt. Lender’s motion for summary judgment was denied as moot because the Court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). The outcome could not affect the estate because Debtors exempted the residence and could not affect Debtors because they had not sought to avoid the judgment lien. Hence, the proceeding was not related to the bankruptcy case.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION