(Debtor lacks standing to prosecute proceeding to determine validity, priority and extent of judgment lien)
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.
(The Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 707(b) was denied after applying the totality of the circumstances standard required under the statute. The court found that the Debtor’s rent deduction which exceeded the Trustee’s recommended amount based on the IRS National and Local Standards was appropriate because the amount more accurately reflected the Debtor’s actual expenses)
(Chapter 11 debtor's request for claims bar date denied because too soon after 341 meeting)
(On the Means Test Form, Debtor may deduct the full amount of payments to a secured creditor even when Debtor intends to surrender the collateral)
(granting in part motion to dismiss Chapter 11 debtor's request for injunction, declaratory relief, and estimation of claim)
(denying cross motions for summary judgment on trustee's preference claim)
(finding debt owed under PACA to be nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(4))
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to avoid preferential transfers made by defendant-insider is granted as plaintiff established all elements of preferential transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), including that debtor was insolvent when transfers occurred and that transfers allowed defendant to receive more than he would have in a Chapter 7 case, the only defenses defendant raised in his amended answer. Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and is deemed not to contest the undisputed facts or the motion. Plaintiff’s request for an award of pre-judgment interest is denied to the extent it requests interest from the date of the transfers, which dates Plaintiff did not set forth. Plaintiff is entitled to interest, calculated from the date of demand, under a rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
In calculating projected disposable income, the debtors are entitled to deduct ownership expense with regard to motor vehicle under IRS Standards, without regard to whether any debt is owed on the vehicle.
At the originally scheduled confirmation hearing, the Debtor’s chapter 13 case was put on “ten day status” for the debtor’s attorney to provide notice to creditors of a re-scheduled § 341 meeting and confirmation hearing. The § 341 meeting could not be conducted because of a conflict the attorney had. After counsel failed to renotice the meeting and hearing, the trustee submitted a report requesting dismissal, and the case was dismissed. The attorney timely moved to reinstate the case, but did not schedule a hearing on it in accordance with the court’s self-calendaring procedures. Several months after dismissal, when the motion came to the court’s attention, the court directed the attorney to schedule a hearing on the motion. In the meantime, the attorney had filed another motion to reinstate the case, for which the Clerk’s office charged a $235 filing fee, which the debtor paid. The attorney still did not schedule a hearing on either motion. The court scheduled a hearing on reinstatement and also directed the attorney to show cause why notice had not been served as directed, why fees should not be disgorged, and why the filing fee should not be refunded. By separate order, the Court reinstated the case. In this Order, the Court required the attorney to refund the filing fee and disgorge fees he had received and directed payment of the money to the trustee. The Court referred the matter to the State Bar of Georgia for consideration of whether discipline was appropriate.