(The automatic stay render a state court contempt order void even though creditors were not listed in Debtor's bcy petition);
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.
(Sanctions imposed against creditor who threatened to arrive at Debtors' residence with police and a locksmith)
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6); Rule 55; default judgment under § 523 cannot be granted when complaint does not allege elements of the claim
Service in an adversary proceeding on an insured depository institution was not proper.
11 U.S.C. §§ 522(f)(1)(A), 523(a)(5); Debtor’s motion to avoid a lien under § 522(f)(1) is denied. Judicial liens based on domestic support obligations are not avoidable under the lien avoidance statute.
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
Court issues show cause order to Chapter 13 debtor's attorney for failure to appear at hearing
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
(Conditionally denying Debtor's request for appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent Debtor's son's one-third interest in real property subject to the Chapter 7 Trustee's § 363(b) and (h) motion to sell because Debtor, as legal guardian for his son, could represent the interest of his minor son under Bankruptcy Rule 7017(c), Debtor's identical one-third interest in the property aligned with the interests of his minor son, and Debtor made no allegations that his representation of his son's interest was inadequate; the Court authorized Debtor to appoint a guardian with costs coming from the proceeds of his portion of the sale of the subject real property if Debtor determined his representation of his minor son's interest was inadequate);
(Denying pro se Debtor's Motion to Recuse Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455 because Debtor made no substantiated allegations or provided evidence of the Court's favoritism or antagonism, instead Debtor's allegations were in reference to the Court's statements at a hearing regarding applicable burden of proof requirements);
Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c) based on the Plaintiff's claims "arising in" the underlying bankruptcy proceeding and Plaintiff's failure to prove that the claims could be timely adjudicated in state court; Plaintiff's claims "arise in" the underlying bankruptcy proceeding (In re Halo Technology Holdings, Inc., case numbers 07-50480 through 07-50481, 07-50486 through 50494, 07-50496 (Bankr. D. Conn.)) because the implicated Director and Officer's liability policy was an asset of the bankruptcy estate, with the debtor-in-possession as a named insured, and the proceeds of the policy were also an asset of the bankruptcy estate; the imposition of the automatic stay to any proceeding involving a bankruptcy estate assets would not allow Plaintiff's to timely adjudicate the matter in state court);
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
In this case, the court had granted the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to a proof of a priority claim filed by the law firm that represented the debtor in possession in the superceded Chapter 11 case because the court had never authorized the employment of the firm. Former debtor in possession then moved for nunc pro tunc approval of employment of the firm. The Court denied the motion in part because the movant was no longer the debtor in possession, and only a trustee (including a debtor in possession) can seek approval of counsel under section 327.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION