Motion for reconsideration denied: Constitutional issue under Article I, Section 10, regarding gold and silver Coin as legal tender; Debtor is not entitled to jury trial.
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.
Declaring debt nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6); debt arose from "out of trust" sales of vehicles.
granting summary judgment to plaintiff on her claim that attorney's fees awarded by state court were intended to be additional child support and are therefore nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(5)
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
Order on Debtor’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (§ 523(a)(2)(A): To establish actual fraud in the use of a credit card, the Plaintiff must show a debtor’s actual subjective intent not to pay)
Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Reopen, Motion to Vacate Foreclosure Sale and Remanding Case to State Court, (Order denying debtor’s motions in closed case and remanding the debtor’s attempted removal of a state court dispossessory proceeding (which had been removed multiple times to District Court) to DeKalb County State Court and noting that such remand is not reviewable by appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b))
The Debtor’s chapter 13 plan, as amended, met all the requirements for confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1325, but the Trustee objected to its confirmation, and requested dismissal of the case, because Debtor was not eligible because he did not receive the credit briefing required by 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) until three days after the filing of his petition. § 109(h) is not jurisdictional and may be waived. Because the Trustee did not timely pursue dismissal of the case due to the Debtor’s ineligibility, the Court declined to dismiss the case and confirmed the plan.
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
On cross motions for summary judgment plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(6) is denied as plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing no material facts in dispute and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff’s claims under § 523(a)(2)(B) and (a)(6) and denied as to plaintiff’s claims under § 523(a)(2)(A). Defendant did not address the § 523(a)(2)(A).
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendant moved to dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s complaint, which seeks to have the debt Defendant owes to Plaintiff deemed non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim for larceny or embezzlement. The complaint failed to state a claim for larceny, however, the Court could not conclude that the allegations could not, under any circumstances, make out a claim for embezzlement. The Court therefore granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to the dischargeability claim based on larceny and denied the Motion with respect to the dischargeability claim based on embezzlement.
Order Granting GRP Financial Services Inc.’s Motion to Annul Automatic Stay and Validate Foreclosure Sale. Debtor’s last mortgage payment was made in September of 2002, but two bankruptcy filings and extensive district court litigation prevented Movant from completing a foreclosure sale of Debtor’s property. After two years of litigation regarding the validity of the promissory note and deed to secure debt held by Movant, the District Court determined that Movant had the authority to foreclose on Debtor’s property. Debtor, pro se, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code the Friday before the scheduled foreclosure sale of her property. The Court modified the stay to allow Movant to cry the foreclosure sale. Debtor subsequently obtained counsel who represented her at the hearing on this matter and briefed the issue of whether Debtor filed her petition and plan in good faith. The Court concluded that cause existed to annul the stay because Debtor lacked good faith in filing her petition.
Order Denying Petition for Payment of Unclaimed Funds. Movant, attorney-in-fact for JP Morgan Chase Bank, provided no evidence that the debt related to the unclaimed funds request was not satisfied through foreclosure or other payment or that JP Morgan Chase Bank still holds the claim and has not transferred or assigned the claim to another entity.