Summary judgment granted on claim that debt is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19) as debt for violation of federal securities law.
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 Paul W. Bonapfel
Debtor’s attorney ordered to show cause why fees should not be disallowed, reduced, or postponed, why sanctions should not be imposed, and why attorney should not be suspended from filing new cases, when attorney failed to appear at confirmation hearing and attorney who had been contacted to represent debtors at hearing after the time the hearing was scheduled to begin could not be prepared to represent them.
Order denying motion for entry of default and default judgment. Even if answer to complaint is filed late, if it is filed prior to request for entry of default, clerk may not enter default, Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
The debtor and the creditor consented to judgment in the District Court and to a finding of fact that the debtor had "wrongfully and knowingly" converted creditor's property. The consent judgment does not have issue preclusive effect in dischargeability litigation under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(6) because the finding of fact does not establish that the debtor acted without just cause or excuse, which is necessary in order for conduct to be "willful and malicious."
Order on creditor’s Motion for Relief from Stay to enforce a lien placed on funds in the Debtor’s deposit account at the creditor’s banking institution by way of setoff and the Debtor’s objection on the basis that the funds in the deposit account were social security benefits and not subject to the lien of the creditor under 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). The Court concluded that 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) did not prohibit the enforcement by the creditor of its lien on the deposit account in which social security funds were deposited, because the setoff did not use “legal process” and the Debtors would effectively be receiving the economic benefit of a claimed exemption twice. The Court held that the creditor was entitled to set off the liened funds.
(Sanctions: Debtor's attorney barred from filing cases until completion of CLE); entered 2011-06-22; DA complied with CLE requirement 6/28/11.
(Denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on claim that debt was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2).).
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Order directing United State Trustee to inquire whether Debtor was entitled to a discharge. Using §§ 727(c)(2) & 105(a), the Court sua sponte directed the United States Trustee to investigate whether grounds exist to deny Debtor’s discharge. The Court wanted further inquiry into the possibility that Debtor had an undisclosed history of bankruptcy filings.
Order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to properly effectuate service of process.
Honorable James R. Sacca
Order following trial, determining Plaintiff failed to prove Debtors incurred debt through fraud under 523(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff and a company owned by Debtors entered into a receivables financing agreement pursuant to which Debtors' company submitted invoices and requested funding on a recurring basis. Debtors, as officers and guarantors, made certain representations in writing concerning their company's financial condition at the time of the agreement and agreed, at that time, that those representations would also apply to future funding requests, but no written representations were made at the time of the future requests. Plaintiff claimed subsequent requests for funding were fraudulent because, at the time, Debtors did not disclose pending vendor lawsuits or a contemplated Chapter 11 filing. The Court found (1) Debtors representations at the time of the agreement were made in good faith, and the evidence did not show Debtors made any reaffirmations of those representations at the time of their subsequent funding requests; (2) Plaintiff failed to show that Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiff at the time the agreement was signed or at the time of subsequent requests; and (3) even if Debtors had made reaffirmations of their initial representations, they were not actionable under section 523(a)(2)(A) because they and the initial representations themselves were statements with respect to Debtors’ or an insiders' financial condition.