(Order denying debtor's motion for default judgment to set aside assignment of interest in wrongful death suit proceeds because the complaint does not allege sufficient facts to determine whether the creditor's interest in proceeds via an assignment is invalid because it does not comply with the requirements of Georgia law)
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
In Re: Broadfoot v. Belford (In re Nationwide Warehouse & Storage), AP 03-6550, Doc. #191 10/03/2005
(Order granting Trustee's request for turnover of documents, ruling defendant's invocation of the attorney-client privilege was inapplicable)
Judge Robert E. Brizendine (Retired)
11 USC Sec. 523, F.R.B.P. 4007(c), denying extension of time to file complaint objecting to dischargeability
(11 U.S.C. 523(a)(5), dischargeability of obligations arising from divorce decree)
(deferring objection to claims for punitive damages)
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Under Georgia law of equitable subrogation Debtor’s transfer of a security deed to Defendant was a contemporaneous exchange for new value and therefore excepted from avoidance as a preference.
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
(Individual filed bankruptcy case after new eligibility requirement of 11 U.S.C. §109(h) went into effect. To be a debtor now requires individual to obtain credit counseling briefing before filing case unless there are exigent circumstances and individual requested the counseling but was unable to obtain it during 5 day period from the request [§ 109(h)(3)] or individual is exempted from counseling due to mental incapacity, physical disability, or on active military duty in combat zone [§109(h)(4)]. This individual did not submit certification of exigent circumstances supporting waiver request or statement supporting exemption from counseling. A hearing will be held to allow presentation of factual basis for waiver request and to determine whether individual is eligible to be a debtor.)
Individual filed bankruptcy case after new eligibility requirement of 11 U.S.C. §109(h) went into effect. To be a debtor now requires individual to obtain credit counseling briefing before filing case unless there are exigent circumstances and individual requested the counseling but was unable to obtain it during 5 day period from the request [§ 109(h)(3)] or individual is exempted from counseling due to mental incapacity, physical disability, or on active military duty in combat zone [§109(h)(4)]. This individual’s certification of exigent circumstances is insufficient, but if she files supplement that appears to justify a waiver and obtains counseling within 30 days of filing the petition, Court will hold hearing to determine whether waiver request is satisfactory and she is eligible to be a debtor. Otherwise case must be dismissed
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
Creditor moved to dismiss case in May 2003, and the Court orally granted the motion at a hearing held on June 3, 2003. The Order granting the motion was entered on June 9, 2003. Between those dates, the creditor ran its first advertisement. In July 2003, the creditor foreclosed. Debtor now contends that the foreclosure was void because running the ad prior to the entry of the order violated the automatic stay. Creditor moved to reopen the case to obtain an annulment of the stay. Held: Motion denied. Court lacks power under section 350 to reopen dismissed case to entertain motion as if case had never been dismissed.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
(Directs return of prepetition retainer paid to professional who was not employed by Debtor)