Court denied in part motion for summary judgment in preference action. Plaintiff failed to show that transfers by check to "GoldenChair/Capital Factors." were made to or for the benefit of Defendant Golden Chair. For purposes of motion, the Court was constrained to construe the slash as “or,’ thereby leaving open the factual question of whether Golden Chair received or derived benefit from transfers not deposited in its bank account.
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)
A creditor and the debtor agreed to an examination of the debtor, though no contested matter had been commenced. The creditor filed a “Notice of Rule 2004 Examination,” seeking certain documents. The Debtor filed an objection to the scope of document production. The Court held that the notice was insufficient to obligate Debtor to produce documents because creditor failed to move for and obtain an order requiring Debtor to appear for a Rule 2004 examination.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
(Denial of motion for reconsideration of dismissal order);
(Debtor's motion to reopen granted: Debtor allowed to file a reaffirmation agreement "made" before the discharge was entered);
(Denial of motion for reconsideration of order denying UST's motion to dismiss because UST failed to satisfy burden of proof);
(granting summary judgment to trustee on complaint to avoid preferential transfer).
(Reaffirmation agreement was "made" pre-discharge when Debtor and the creditor executed the agreement pre-discharge, but Debtor's attorney executed the agreement after entry of the discharge);
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
Reaffirmation Agreements - Court does not have authority to allow debtor to rescind a reaffirmation agreement unless debtor gives timely notice of the rescission to the creditor.
Judge Robert E. Brizendine (Retired)
(Order denying motion to compel discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, as incorporated by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9014(c) and 7037. Party asserted Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which Court interpreted as extending to any response that might furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute said party.)
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Summary Judgment for Debtor, finding an undue hardship and discharging Debtor’s student loan debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Debtor was 62 years old, had a history of health problems, had limited education, lacked stable employment, and had attempted to pay her student loan debts through the years.