(The Court overruled the ex-spouse's objection to confirmation, finding that the debts in question were not comprised of domestic support obligations, which would have required full payment under the plan, and finding that the concurrently accrued attorney's fees should be classified as unsecured pre-petition claims against the Debtor).
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 Court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant, finding that the complaint failed to state sufficient facts to support the conclusion that the Debtor's discharge should be denied under section 727(a)(4)
Imposing sanctions for violations of the automatic stay; creditor required to undo post-petition repossession
Granting Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; non-core matter could not be “related to” a case under title 11 because the underlying bankruptcy case was dismissed.
Order denying creditor's request in connection with a motion for relief from the automatic stay that the Court direct trustees as to the acceptability of electronic titles and giving the trustee an opportunity to file a brief outlining his objections, if any, to the admissibility of an electronic title report to establish the creditor's security interest.
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as to its prior order regarding Plaintiff’s objection to claim count. Plaintiff initiated a multi-count suit against Defendant, and Defendant prevailed on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with the exception of the objection to claim count. The prior order dismissed the other counts and provided that Defendant should amend its claim to resolve the agreed upon payment issue. Defendant amended its claim. However, Plaintiff still disputes Defendant’s amended claim as to characterization, amount, and applicable interest, if any. The Court provided that Plaintiff was not precluded from raising additional bases to object to Defendant’s proof of claim but such action should occur in the main case since the underlying basis for the objection to claim was dismissed by the prior order. An appeal has been docketed.
Granting summary judgment; probate estate administrator committed defalcation by disobeying the California court overseeing administration
Debtor reopened a fully administered, discharged, and closed Chapter 7 bankruptcy case for the sole purpose of stripping off a wholly unsecured junior lien on real property. At a hearing for the lien strip motion, the court ordered briefing on questions about Debtor’s unopposed motion, citing issues of laches, due process, and subject matter jurisdiction. Debtor asserted in a subsequent brief that none of those issues prevented the court from granting her motion. First, the short amount of time between closing and reopening, the excusableness of failing to raise the motion prior to closing, and the diligence of the debtor weighed against a finding of laches. Second, that the failure to bring the motion prior to closing did not deprive the respondent lender of due process because it had access to the same appraisal methods Debtor used. Third, that the issues of subject matter jurisdiction could be cured by order. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction, as well as statutory authority, became relevant in the case because closing of a bankruptcy case abandons all estate property by operation of law. Nonetheless, Debtor asserted that this “technical abandonment” could be revoked by the court. The court agreed and held that the proper standard for revocation of the technical abandonment was under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, Relief from Judgment or Order. The court held that the excusable neglect standard of that rule was met in the case and revoked the abandonment of the property for the purpose of stripping the lien on it.
Honorable Barbara Ellis-Monro, Chief Judge
Trustee filed complaint to avoid and recover certain funds for the benefit of Debtor’s estate. Defendant Durand filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Trustee had not adequately pled a cause of action to avoid a preference claim or a fraudulent transfer claim. The Court held that the Complaint adequately pleaded the necessary elements for constructive fraud and for avoidance of a transfer under § 544(a)(1).
Debtor sought to vacate her Chapter 7 discharge in order to enter into a reaffirmation agreement with her mortgage lender. The Court held that a discharge may only be revoked under 11 U.S.C. § 727. The Court further held that nothing in the Bankruptcy Code prevents a debtor from voluntarily repaying a debt or entering into a new loan agreement with a creditor.