Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) was denied. Plaintiff’s amended complaint provided facts beyond mere conclusory statements and with sufficient particularity to put Defendant on notice as to the acts or omissions that Plaintiff bases its nondischargeability claim. Thus, the Court was able to make a reasonable inference that Defendant plausibly misrepresented his financial situation through omissions and concealment.
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.
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Debtor executed a home equity security deed in favor of Lenox Financial Mortgage, LLC, who transferred the interest to Defendant. Plaintiff, the Chapter 7 Trustee, filed the adversary proceeding seeking to recover from Defendant either its interest in the property or the value of that interest under 11 U.S.C. § 550. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court determined that it did have jurisdiction, despite the fact that the Trustee had abandoned the property subject to Defendant’s security interest. Similarly, abandonment of the property did not affect Plaintiff’s ability to state a claim for relief. The Court denied the motion to dismiss.
Debtor executed a home equity security deed in favor of Lenox Financial Mortgage, LLC, who transferred the interest to Defendant. Plaintiff, the Chapter 7 Trustee, filed the adversary proceeding seeking to recover from Defendant either its interest in the property or the value of that interest under 11 U.S.C. § 550. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court determined that it did have jurisdiction, despite the fact that the Trustee had abandoned the property subject to Defendant’s security interest. Similarly, abandonment of the property did not affect Plaintiff’s ability to state a claim for relief. The Court denied the motion to dismiss.
Honorable Barbara Ellis-Monro, Chief Judge
Movant filed its Motion for Relief to pursue 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions against Debtor in district court. The Court found that the sanctions provided for by § 1927 are of a pecuniary nature and as such not covered by the exception to the automatic stay found in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4).
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Order on Defendant’s motion to dismiss adversary proceeding seeking turnover under Section 542 of amounts owed on open account. The Court found the action did not qualify as a core proceeding to turn over property of the estate under Section 542 because it was unclear whether the debt at issue was undisputed and therefore subject to turnover. The underlying transactions occurred prepetition and Defendant had not filed a proof of claim or otherwise participated in the bankruptcy case. Thus, the adversary proceeding was a non-core proceeding within the Bankruptcy Court’s “related to” jurisdiction.
Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss adversary proceeding and granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The complaint sought turnover under Section 542 of amounts owed on open account. The debt at issue was clearly disputed based on Debtor’s schedules and Defendant’s proof of claim filed in the bankruptcy case. The Court found that although the adversary proceeding was not an action to turn over property of the estate under Section 542, the matter was a core proceeding “arising under” the bankruptcy code, because the Court must adjudicate Plaintiff’s claim in order to rule on Defendant’s proof of claim.
Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss adversary proceeding and granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The complaint sought turnover under Section 542 of amounts owed on open account. The debt at issue was clearly disputed based on Debtor’s schedules and Defendant’s proof of claim filed in the bankruptcy case. The Court found that although the adversary proceeding was not an action to turn over property of the estate under Section 542, the matter was a core proceeding “arising under” the bankruptcy code, because the Court must adjudicate Plaintiff’s claim in order to rule on Defendant’s proof of claim.
Order on Defendant’s motion to dismiss adversary proceeding seeking turnover under Section 542 of amounts owed on open account. The Court found the action did not qualify as a core proceeding to turn over property of the estate under Section 542 because it was unclear whether the debt at issue was undisputed and therefore subject to turnover. The underlying transactions occurred prepetition and Defendant had not filed a proof of claim or otherwise participated in the bankruptcy case. Thus, the adversary proceeding was a non-core proceeding within the Bankruptcy Court’s “related to” jurisdiction.
Order dismissing Debtor’s complaint for declaratory relief based on prior state court actions and prepetition business dealings with the Defendants. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to overrule the state court decisions. As to jurisdiction over the remaining issues, those claims were at most “related to” the bankruptcy case, and to the extent “related to” jurisdiction may exist, the Court found that permissive abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c) was warranted.
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
(Chapter 13 Debtors' motion for default judgment on complaint to strip off a third priority lien set for hearing so that Debtor may put on evidence and address: (1) the appropriate date for valuation under section 506(a) and 1322(b)(2); and (2) whether Debtors are bound by the value in their schedules based on principles of res judicata or judicial estoppel)