denying motion for summary judgment on whether debt arose under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act and whether the debt is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4)
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 for modification of pre-confirmation adequate protection payments for lack of evidence regarding rate of depreciation of vehicle
Ch7T's motion to transfer case of affiliate filed in another district granted
Ch. 7 Debtor's pro se objections to claims and motions to overturn state court criminal contempt orders denied
(§522 motion to avoid Mechanic's lien denied)
denial of motion to recuse
Relief from stay to proceed with litigation in Canada denied
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Order denying Movants’ motion to modify order lifting stay and denying Debtor’s motion for contempt. Debtor was not entitled to a finding of contempt or damages where any stay violation by Movants was not wilful and any damages were speculative and not casually related to Movants’ actions.
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
(11 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a), (a)(5)(B)(ii),(a)(9); 1326(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C), (a)(2), (a)(3); 361). Under BAPCPA, secured car creditor objected to confirmation of Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan because Debtor’s adequate protection payments were not being paid directly to creditor but were paid to Chapter 13 Trustee and because they were not being applied to both principal and interest, but were being applied to reduce principal only. Objections overruled. With regard to the adequate protection payments made to the Chapter 13 Trustee, the statutory scheme allows Chapter 13 Trustee to administer such adequate protection payments; the administrative lien on the adequate protection payments protects the creditor if the case is dismissed prior to confirmation; and practical considerations, including accounting difficulties and record keeping, favor administration by the Chapter 13 Trustee. With regard to adequate protection payments being applied to principal and interest, creditor’s analysis is unconvincing. Application of the payment to an interest component would effect a significant change in bankruptcy law unsupported by legislative history and contradicts fundamental bankruptcy principles.
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
An application for unclaimed funds paid into the court’s registry by a trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 347(a) must show that the creditor has a present entitlement to the funds. An applicant seeking unclaimed funds due to distributions made on account of a secured claim must show that the debt has not been satisfied through payment or foreclosure and that an amount is currently due and payable to which the unclaimed funds may lawfully be applied. Because the applicant has not done so, the application is denied without prejudice. Any future application must be served on the debtors, their counsel, and the trustee.