Order on a Complaint objecting to dischargeability of certain debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523 (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B) and (a)(4) after trial. The Court first determined Debtor’s personal liability for funds transferred and then concluded that certain of the funds were converted by the Debtor, the conversion occurred with fraudulent intent and the Debtor’s acts constituted embezzlement under Section 523(a)(4). All other transfers were either not the debt of the Debtor or were dischargeable.
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 denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment because Plaintiff’s own evidence and Debtor’s response rebutted the presumption of nondischargeability available under § 523(a)(2)(C). The facts as presented were insufficient to award judgment to Plaintiff without the benefit of the presumption.
(Denying Trustee's objection to claim; secured lender's deficiency claim arising from foreclosed security deed was not unenforceable under state law, notwithstanding lender's failure to confirm another foreclosure sale on a related property.).
(Topic: Liens; Subtopic: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and attempted wrongful foreclosure); entered ; motions for reconsideration denied 2011-04-29 (Doc. No. 84) and 2011-05-26 (Doc. No. 125). Notice of appeal filed 2011-05-13 (Doc. No. 98).
Order determining that campaign contributions made to a candidate for public office (“campaign funds”), who files bankruptcy without incorporating the campaign, are property of the bankruptcy estate. Whether the campaign funds constitute property of the estate was an issue relevant to confirmation of a chapter 13 plan. The Court found that campaign funds were property of the estate pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court also found that the restrictions placed on a candidate’s use of campaign funds by the Georgia state campaign finance law did not prevent the campaign funds from being property of the estate.
(Granting debtor's motion for sanctions arising from a violation of the automatic stay; damages consisted of lost wages and attorney's fees, but not punitive damages.).
Honorable James R. Sacca
Debtors' Motion to Retain Tax Refund, filed by Joint Debtors, Mohammed Hraga and Renee Hraga, was granted to the extent Mr. Hraga could exempt the refund and denied to the extent he could not, and it was denied to the extent Mrs. Hraga sought an exemption in the refund. Agreeing with the analysis in In re Evans, No. 10-10077-WHD, 2010 WL 6612501 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2010), the Court found that because the entire refund was attributable to Mr. Hraga's income, the refund in its entirety was the sole property of Mr. Hraga at the time of the bankruptcy filing and that Renee Hraga was not entitled to an exemption.
Chapter 11 Plan Confirmation denied as neither fair nor equitable and for failure to comply with the "absolute priority rule" of 11 U.S.C. section 1129(b). Debtor's principle sought to retain 100% of his stock in the Debtor and retain a $150,000 salary per year. The shareholder's legally unenforceable "commitment" to cover operating losses for the first year after the confirmation of the plan did not satisfy the absolute priority rule under a plan which proposed to pay only $17,441 to non-insider unsecured creditors over four years when they were owed $600,000.
Judge Robert E. Brizendine (Retired)
(Defendant sought summary judgment on complaint of Plaintiff-Debtor regarding dischargeability of certain tax liability under 11 U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(1) and 507(a)(8)(C) & (E). Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant, finding that Debtor failed to create fact issue pertaining to argument that sales and use taxes at issue were actually excise taxes under state law and not nondischargeable trust fund taxes. See O.C.G.A. Section 48-8-30 et seq.)