Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment addressing the dischargeability of tax debt
related to a late-filed, post-assessment income tax return. The Court rejected the IRS’s argument
that the debt arose from the IRS assessment of tax liability, rather than the Debtor’s return filed
after the assessment, and was therefore nondischargeable under § 523(a)(1)(B)(i) as one for
which a required return was not filed or given. The Court further concluded neither the
definition of “return” under § 523(a)(19), which requires satisfaction of the “applicable
nonbankruptcy law (including applicable filing requirements),” nor the “honest and reasonable”
prong of the Beard test includes consideration of the timeliness of the filing.
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.
Court sua sponte dismissed the Plaintiff's case for failure to state a claim, finding no basis for relief and that the allegations were patently frivolous.
Order on subject matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to enter a money judgment on behalf of a creditor objecting to the debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) and (B), (a)(4)(A) and (D). The Court found that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because the plaintiff’s claim had no relevance to the Section 727 causes of action. The Court then found that in the event “related to” jurisdiction did exist, bifurcation of the issues was appropriate. If the plaintiff prevailed on the objection to discharge, the Court would sua sponte lift the stay to allow the related litigation on damages to continue.
Order after trial on dischargeability. Following the failure of the parties’ business venture within the child and teen talent industry, the Plaintiffs brought an action alleging numerous causes of action and asserting that liability for such actions was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6). In finding the Defendant liable for fraud, conversion, and usurpation of corporate opportunities, the Court ruled the discovery doctrine tolled the statute of limitations as to a portion of the claim, and also held a non-compete provision in the parties’ shareholder agreement unenforceable. All of the claims were found to be nondischargeable. Lastly, the Court held that a partial award of attorneys’ fees was appropriate while punitive damages were not recoverable.
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
(Order (1) denying motion to amend complaint to add defendant; and (2) abstaining under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(1) from hearing any nonbankruptcy, state law claims the Plaintiff has against the proposed added defendant. Court concluded that plaintiff’s claims against proposed defendant were strictly nonbankruptcy claims and the proposed defendant was not a necessary party for the dischargeability litigation.)
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Honorable James R. Sacca
The Court concluded that, for purposes of determining the Debtors’ applicable commitment period for their Chapter 13 plan under 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(4), the average monthly income of the self-employed husband is defined as gross receipts before deducting business expenses, not net income after deducting expenses; thus the Debtors’ applicable commitment period is five years, not three.
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Debtor moved to reconsider the dismissal order and appealed the dismissal order prior to the disposition of the motion to reconsider. The Court supplemented the original dismissal order and denied the motion to reconsider based upon Debtor’s failure to meet her burden of proof as to the feasibility of her proposed plan as required by section 1325(a)(6). The Court relied upon Debtor’s testimony at two separate hearings to make its ruling. Debtor was seeking to treat two mortgages the matured prepetition through her plan and the evidence regarding her ability to make and sustain the increased plan payments was insufficient to satisfy the feasibility confirmation requirement. Under Rule 8002(b), the Court retained jurisdiction despite Debtor’s notice of appeal since the pending motion to reconsider had not been ruled on prior to Debtor filing an appeal.
Debtor moved to reconsider the dismissal order and appealed the dismissal order prior to the disposition of the motion to reconsider. The Court supplemented the original dismissal order and denied the motion to reconsider based upon Debtor’s failure to meet her burden of proof as to the feasibility of her proposed plan as required by section 1325(a)(6). The Court relied upon Debtor’s testimony at two separate hearings to make its ruling. Debtor was seeking to treat two mortgages the matured prepetition through her plan and the evidence regarding her ability to make and sustain the increased plan payments was insufficient to satisfy the feasibility confirmation requirement. Under Rule 8002(b), the Court retained jurisdiction despite Debtor’s notice of appeal since the pending motion to reconsider had not been ruled on prior to Debtor filing an appeal.
The Chapter 7 Trustee obtained judgments against the principals of the Debtor. Subsequently, the Trustee sought to collect on those judgments by filing a separate adversary proceeding seeking to avoid transfers made by the judgment debtors to non-debtor third parties, asserting that F.R.B.P. 7069 provided the procedural mechanism for the action. Noting that the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding was questionable, the Court analyzed the twelve factors relevant to discretionary abstention. The Court concluded that abstention was appropriate where the Trustee asserted purely state law causes of action that did not affect the administration of the bankruptcy estate.
The Chapter 7 Trustee obtained judgments against the principals of the Debtor. Subsequently, the Trustee sought to collect on those judgments by filing a separate adversary proceeding seeking to avoid transfers made by the judgment debtors to non-debtor third parties, asserting that F.R.B.P. 7069 provided the procedural mechanism for the action. Noting that the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding was questionable, the Court analyzed the twelve factors relevant to discretionary abstention. The Court concluded that abstention was appropriate where the Trustee asserted purely state law causes of action that did not affect the administration of the bankruptcy estate.