(denying creditor's objection to debtor's exemption, as debtor's interest in funds garnished from her wages during the prepetition period had not been terminated at the time her petition was filed; thus the funds became property of her bankruptcy estate and were subject to exemption).
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.
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment holding, inter alia, (1) the Debtor’s payments to the Defendants to repurchase membership units and to settle disputes may be avoided under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 and/or 548 if the facts show no reasonably equivalent value to the Debtor for the obligation and payments made, but disputed issues of fact and unknown facts remain; (2) no constructive trust had been imposed on funds making payment, so issues of fact remained as to whether the funds transferred were property of the estate; and (3) the Trustee’s claims are not time barred under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 and 546, but some of the Trustee’s claims are time barred under 11 U.S.C. § 548.
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
Although disappointed in professionalism of the lawyers, the court declines to award sanctions for filing of motion for protective order against second deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6) when party did not obtain leave of court for taking second deposition as FRCP 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires.
Regardless of whether an installment sale contract is an executory contract that is rejected, Debtor has an interest in the real estate, and the other party has a secured claim. A chapter 11 plan may deal with the claim.
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Prior to the Debtor's Chapter 11 filing, the Debtor and its landlord were engaged in state
court litigation. The landlord sought to evict Debtor and to determine damages under the lease. Debtor raised a setoff defense based on substantial improvements Debtor made to the building. The presiding state court judge heard two days of testimony before making a partial ruling on the amount of rents owing. The same day the state court order was entered, Debtor filed a Chapter 11 petition. The landlord now seeks relief from stay to continue the state court action. The landlord asserts that the lease terminated pre-petition by operation of Florida law and by the terms of the lease.
The Court held that the lease was not terminated pre-petition. The state court complaint was insufficient written notice of termination based on Florida law disfavoring forfeiture provisions and the ambiguous language of the complaint. The stay was modified to allow the state court proceeding to continue for the purpose of determining the amount of pre-petition rent owing.
Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration after Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant argued that the Court overlooked deposition testimony in the record that created a genuine issue of material fact as to Defendant’s knowledge of a lien. Defendant - a business entity - received a lien report showing the lien at issue. But Defendant argued that its employee failed to see the lien on the report and therefore Defendant had no knowledge of the lien. The Court ruled that the fact was immaterial and did not change the court’s legal conclusions. In the Eleventh Circuit, a business entity is held to have knowledge of a document’s contents if that document is received and placed in the business’s files.
Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on § 727 dischargeability issue. Defendant entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the transfer at issue did not occur within one year of Defendant’s filing bankruptcy, as required under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2). And a scrivener’s error in the statement of financial affairs that was disclosed at the § 341 meeting of creditors did not constitute a false oath or account under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4).
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
(Automatic stay lifted to, among other things, have state court determine if certain obligations in divorce decree are in the nature of support so as to constitute "domestic support obligation" under 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A). This is relevant to whether obligations will be discharged should debtor complete Chapter 13 plan payments. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1328(a)(2) and 523(a)(5).)
(Automatic stay lifted; repeated failure to pay filing fees.)
(Motion for relief from stay is moot, as stay terminated under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A). Once property is abandoned, it is no longer property of the estate. Court has no jurisdiction to hear adversary proceeding involving property that is not property of the estate.)