Chapter 13 trustee objects to confirmation of the debtor’s plan on the ground that continuation of direct payments on student loans results in failure to pay all disposable income to unsecured creditors under § 1325(b)(1)(B). The court concludes that the plan is potentially confirmable for two reasons. First, § 1322(b)(5) permits continuation of payments on long-term unsecured debt, and the Debtor’s use of PDI to make such payments results in all PDI being paid to unsecured creditors. Second, although the student loan payments do not qualify as a “reasonably necessary” expenditure under § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) in view of its specific exclusion of payments on debts, the circumstances surrounding the Debtor’s student loans, including their nondischargeable nature, may qualify as a “special circumstance” under § 707(b)(2)(B) that may justify a downward adjustment of PDI if the Debtor properly documents and explains them under § 707(b)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).
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.
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
Trustee seeking to recover voidable preference under § 547(b) and defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court grants partial summary judgment to the Trustee that all elements of a preference have been established but concludes that there are disputed issues of fact that preclude entry of summary judgment on the defendant’s ordinary course of business defense under § 547(c)(2).
Order denying the Defendant’s motion to exclude issue from proposed pretrial order. If the Plaintiff had failed to properly plead the issue and thus deprive the Defendant of the ability to prepare a defense in anticipation of trial, the Defendant would have a basis for objecting the inclusion of the issue in the pretrial order. However, the Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently set forth the claim. A factual dispute as to whether the Plaintiff can prove the claim is not a basis for exclusion of the claim from the pretrial order.
Order granting summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s preference action. The Plaintiff established all elements of a preference action under 11 U.S.C. § 547 and set forth facts in its Statement of Material Facts which negated the applicability of Defendant’s affirmative defenses. Although the Defendant pled a number of affirmative defenses in its answer, it did not file a response to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and failed to carry its burden of establishing any affirmative defense.
Creditor who acquired, by assignment from an affiliate, a real estate mortgage executed by the debtor alleged that the debtor had committed fraud in connection with the mortgage and sought determination that its deficiency claim was excepted from discharge. Default judgment is denied because a fraud claim cannot be assigned and no fraud was committed against creditor.
Trustee objected to reasonableness of attorney’s fees of $4,200 in chapter 13 case. Based on modification of fee agreement to provide that the flat fee encompassed substantially all legal services that the debtor would likely require during the life of the case, the Court allowed the fee.
At trial, court determined that the debt of the debtor to the plaintiff for insurance fraud was nondischargeable and determined the amount of the debtor’s liability. The plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees as an element of damages under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, punitive damages under O.C.G.A. 51-12.5.1, and prejudgment interest at seven percent under O.C.G.A. § 7-4-2. Bankruptcy court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2), with consent of the parties, to enter money judgment on the nondischargeable claim.
Although it may be appropriate to object to a claim that includes unmatured interest, it is not appropriate to seek its complete disallowance on that ground; the proper remedy is allowance of the claim in the proper amount. Further, it is not appropriate to disallow a claim, without a hearing, if a response to an objection has been filed, even if the claimant fails to appear at the hearing. If the debtor has an actual objection to a claim on the merits, the court will, of course, hear it. But the court will not disallow a claim, in whole or in part, in the absence of a showing that the debtor has a valid objection that requires its disallowance under 11 U.S.C. §§ 502(b). In re Shank, 315 B.R. 799 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2004). Moreover, if the claim is secured by collateral that the debtor desires to retain, disallowance of the claim other than because it is not owed would not seem to affect the holder’s lien. Thus, the lien might survive the bankruptcy case under Universal American Mortgage Co. v. Bateman (In re Bateman), 331 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2004). If the Debtor’s objective is to retain collateral, disallowance of the claims for a procedural defect would not appear to be in the Debtor’s interest.
(Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Whether the plaintiffs were independent contractors or employees under Fair Labor Standards Act and, thus, whether they were creditors for purposes of bringing a 523 or 727 action, was a fact-intensive determination inappropriate for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court declined to treat the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a motion for summary judgment since the parties had engaged in no discovery in this proceeding and where discovery had not been completed in the district court case which was pending at the time of the bankruptcy filing.)
(Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief under 523(a)(2)(A). The Plaintiff’s oral statement regarding the unencumbered value of real property was a statement regarding his financial condition and, thus, was not actionable under 523(a)(2)(A) under either the broad interpretation or narrow interpretation of “statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.”).