The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that his property was taken from him by Defendant by an illegal foreclosure and also amounted to a fraudulent transfer. Plaintiff made other claims against Defendant relating to his loan and the foreclosure. The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This proceeding did not arise under Title 11 because Plaintiff’s claims related to property which was not property of the bankruptcy estate, as Defendant foreclosed on the property seven months prior to the bankruptcy filing. Plaintiff’s claims were based on state law and non-bankruptcy federal law. There was also no related to jurisdiction under the Pacor test because resolution of the issues surrounding non-estate property could have no conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate. Because the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over any claims, there could also be no supplemental jurisdiction. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the foreclosure sale was not a fraudulent transfer because the price received at the foreclosure was deemed to be the reasonably equivalent value.
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)
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
Order denying creditor’s ex parte motion for order confirming bankruptcy petition does not operate as stay of writ of possession to evict post-foreclosure tenant at sufferance. Section 362(b)(22)’s exception to the automatic stay applies only to a landlord-tenant relationship and, therefore, is not applicable to facts of case. Creditor may file motion for relief from stay, subject to notice and hearing.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Honorable James R. Sacca
Court denied Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings because complaint--which alleged that Defendant garnished Debtor's wages post-petition--alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for violation of the automatic stay, possibly warranting damages under Code Section 362(k).
Court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint and add count seeking denial of discharge under Code Section 727(a)(4) because the deadline for objecting to discharge under Rule 4004(a)had passed and new objection did not stem from the conduct, transactions, or occurrences pled in the original complaint.
(Claims: ex-husband's claim to recover overpayment of child support allowed as §507(a)(1)(A) priority claim)
(Court denied the Plaintiff's post-judgment Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, concluding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment to pleadings before judgment is entered, and because the Plaintiff failed to satisfy either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) and gain relief from the judgment, the Court could not grant the Plaintiff's request to amend his Complaint).
(Attorneys fees: former spouse who prevails in proceeding under §523(a)(5) is not entitled to award of attorneys fees);
(Eligibility: A non-business trust is not eligible to be a debtor under Chapter 7);
(Dischargeability: Creditor's claim non-dischargeable under §523(a)(3));
(Equitable subordination);