Non-parties to adversary proceeding moved for protective order to quash subpoenas duces tecum and to bar their depositions on the ground that they were not parties, there had been no showing that any information they might have would be relevant and plaintiff had not shown a substantial need for their testimony. Motion denied as without merit to the point of being friviolous.
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)
Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was denied because service of process on the individual Defendant at a post office box did not comply with Bankr. Rule 7004(b)(1)
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
denying motion to dismiss complaint for avoidance of fraudulent conveyance
(Electronic service upon a Registered User of CM/ECF is sufficient under Bankruptcy Rule )
(Trustees’s Objection to Claim and Motion to Avoid pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §544 is denied as the Trustee’s strong-arm powers under § 544(a)(1) did not give him priority over the Respondent’s unrecorded equitable interest in the vehicles at issue.);
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Court’s sua sponte Order provides Debtor with an extended period to file the requisite § 1328(a) certificate in order to obtain a discharge. Debtor has completed his plan earlier than expected due to his particular circumstances, and the Court deemed that additional time and an Order directing the filing of the Certificate was reasonable based on this relatively new BAPCPA requirement for discharge.)
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted based on a finding of non-dischargeability pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(B), and Debtor’s discharge was denied under § 727(a)(4)(A));
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s objection to discharge claims under §§ 727(a)(2) and (a)(4) fail to state claims for relief. Complaint’s alleged facts that the debtor, behind on her mortgage payments, executed a warranty deed conveying her residence to the Plaintiff; that Plaintiff agreed to pay the past due mortgage balance; that the debtor agreed to lease the property back for twelve months; and that the debtor defaulted on rent payments to the Plaintiff and then filed a bankruptcy case on eve of eviction proceedings commenced by the Plaintiff, are insufficient to support a finding of intent to hinder, delay or defraud under § 727(a)(2). Debtor’s disclosure of incorrect social security number which was later corrected and multiple disclosures in schedules regarding residence do not support finding of “false oath” under § 727(a)(4) where Plaintiff has offered no evidence of intent.
Order and Notice directing eCast Settlement Corporation to file statement explaining why it failed to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(e)(2); what procedures it follows to insure compliance with Rule 3001(e)(2); and the reasons that the amount it states in its unsecured proof of claim exceeds the amount in the alleged assignor’s claim.
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
(11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B); Debtors’ motion to extend automatic stay is unnecessary and denied as the statutory section is inapplicable. Although Debtors had a previous Chapter 7 case pending within the preceding one-year period, Debtors received a discharge and that case was closed rather than dismissed)