Court orders creditor to return vehicle repossessed postpetition in violation of stay and imposes escalating sanctions for each day that creditor does not comply with order, in addition to damages under section 362(k) to be determined in further proceedings. Individual who directs or is responsible for actions of corporate creditor may be liable in individual capacity.
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
Order denying motion for reconsideration of dismissal pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 521(i)). “Without deciding the issue of whether the Court can even vacate an order that is entered under 521(i), the Court declines to grant the Debtor’s motion because the Debtor has asserted no error of fact or law that warrants reconsideration of the order of dismissal.”
Court declines to dismiss case on U.S. Trustee's motion under section 521(e)(2) or section 707(a) based solely on debtor's failure to produce a tax return to the Chapter 7 trustee when the undisputed record shows that the debtor has not filed tax returns for 15 years and there is no showing that the debtor has otherwise failed to provide required information. Court declines to enter consent order of dismissal because granting relief on the record before the Court would be a manifest injustice and contrary to law.
Order overruling Debtors’ objection to claim. Creditor holds valid and enforceable security interest in goods purchased on account by virtue of the application and cardholder agreement, coupled with the use of the credit account and the sales slips that show the purchased items serving as collateral.
Order denying request for finding pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4)(B). Court denied motion for relief in part because creditor may not take a “no opposition” order on a request for relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4)(B). Because the statute specifies that the court must find that the debtor engaged in a “scheme to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors,” by filing a petition, the creditor must make sure such a request is heard by the court and must, at a minimum, proffer facts in sufficient detail to permit the court to draw the conclusion required by the statute.
Order denying trustee’s motion for partial summary judgment. For purposes of fraudulent transfer action involving alleged Ponzi scheme, debtors received “value” under 548(c) to the extent they made payments to an investor up to the amount of the principal that the investor invested regardless of whether investment was an equity investment/participation rather than debt.
Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8001(f)(4)(A), certification of Order (Doc. 38) for direct appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(2)(A)(i)) that the Order involves a questions lf law that is a matter of public importance as to which there is no controlling decision by the Eleventh Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court and that an immediate appeal of the Order may materially advance the progress of the proceedings.
Order denying motion for stay pending appeal and motion for fee waiver on appeal. For purposes of fee waiver, court certifies that the appeals are not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).
Movants filed separate motions for an order requiring turnover of proceeds from the sales of their real properties asserting the existence of an express, resulting, or implied trust. Proceeds were held by debtor who had served as a qualified intermediary for clients desiring to effect tax-deferred exchanges of real property under § 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Court held that the written agreements did not create an express trust with regard to Movants’ funds, that parol evidence could not be used to vary the terms of the agreements, and that neither a resulting trust nor a constructive trust could be imposed. The opinion also discusses tracing of commingled proceeds and the “lowest intermediate balance” rule.
Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff’s complaint satisfied the “facial plausibility” requirement of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), which is met “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 1949.