(sustaining debtor's objection to claim arising from the sale of a business)
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.
(denying motion to dismiss complaint objecting to discharge and dischargeability; Court could not take judicial notice of the fact that the plaintiff had previously filed bankruptcy and failed to disclose claim against the defendant-debtor for purposes of establishing defense of judicial estoppel).
Judge Robert E. Brizendine (Retired)
(Order denying Co-Defendant's motion for summary judgment on complaint to determine dischargeability of debt under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(3). Movant asserted Plaintiff-Debtor's failure to list claim it holds as assignee excepts debt from discharge. Court held that whether or not assignor had notice, Movant charged with notice by virtue of its listing in Debtor's schedules. In other words, a purported lack of knowledge of a bankruptcy case cannot be imputed to an assignee with notice. Judgment granted in favor of Debtor.)
(Order granting Trustee's motion for summary judgment and denying Debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 727(a)(5)).
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
Employment and Compensation of R. Scott Cunningham as Counsel for Debtors in Pending Cases. Attorney convicted of felonies in the district court and sentenced to prison filed five new bankruptcy cases on the day his incarceration began and failed to withdraw from representation of debtors in 102 Chapter 13 cases, despite inability to represent clients while in prison. Court imposed sanctions in favor of Chapter 13 Trustee and the Clerk's office to compensate for time and expenses incurred on account of attorney's failure to comply with his professional duties.
Court issues show cause order to Chapter 13 debtor's attorney for failure to appear at hearing.
Court issues show cause order to Chapter 13 debtor's attorney for failure to appear at hearing.
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Judgment for Debtor; debt owing to assignee car creditor deemed dischargeable when car creditor failed to carry its burden of proof regarding Debtor's intent to deceive and original seller's justifiable reliance at trial; Debtor was co-signor on contract and co-maker on the note; and car creditor sought its debt to be nondischargeable pursuant to Debtor's alleged false representations under § 523(a)(2)(A));
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
11 U.S.C. § 524(c); Debtor filed pro se motion to reaffirm a debt, but failed to file the Reaffirmation Agreement. Debtor must file the Reaffirmation Agreement before the Court can consider Debtor’s motion to reaffirm and meet the statutory test including that the Reaffirmation Agreement must be made before the discharge is granted; that the creditor make certain disclosures; and that the Reaffirmation Agreement does not impose an undue hardship and is in the best interests of Debtor
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
Debtor had obtained two loans secured by real property and then obtained a line of credit secured by the same property. One of the first two loans was thereafter refinanced. After bankruptcy case was filed and stay was lifted as to the real property, holders of the first two loans sued line of credit lender for a declaratory judgment that their liens were senior. Proceeding was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that outcome of proceeding could not affect bankruptcy estate or debtors and hence was not related to the bankruptcy case.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION