(Hardship discharge granted in Chapter 13 case where debtor passed away. 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1016.)
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.
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
(Dismissal of Chapter 13 case under 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(g)(1) and 349(a). Case dismissed with debtor ineligible for filing for 180 days.)
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Order granting Trustee’s motion for default judgment as to Defendant Kathy Martinson on avoidance claims. The transfers at issue were not part of Debtor’s prior Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate, nor were the transfers affected by Debtor’s discharge.
Order denying Debtor’s motions to reopen and invalidate a foreclosure sale based on the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Debtor was discharged and the estate was fully administered. The property at issue was no longer part of the bankruptcy estate and there was no action this Court could take as to the payment dispute issues raised by Debtor because the allegations did not concern any debt that was discharged or that was subject to the discharge injunction.
The Court denied the car creditor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 case with prejudice and modified the automatic stay to all the car creditor to continue with the pending state court litigation. Considering Debtor’s filing history within the context of the car creditor’s state court litigation schedule, Debtor’s behavior had prejudiced the car creditor enforcing its rights. Because Debtor’s plan provided the car creditor with adequate protection, the interests of each party were served by allowing Debtor to prosecute its Chapter 13 case and modifying the automatic stay to allow the car creditor to pursue its pending state court action.
(Topic: Evidence; Subtopic: Business records exception to hearsay rule. Topic: Preferential transfer; Subtopic: Ordinary course of business exception);
(Topic: Discharge Injunction; Subtopic: omission of creditor from schedules in no-asset case does not prevent discharge and imposition of the §524 discharge injunction)
(Topic: Discovery; Subtopic: Rule 2004 exam scheduled before § 341 meeting is premature)
Order granting motion to reconsider and vacate the court's previous order sanctioning movant for violation of the automatic stay. The issue on reconsideration was whether the attempt to collect post-petition condominium association assessments violated the automatic stay. The Court held that such assessments are not pre-petition claims based on sections 101(5) and 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the obligation to pay post-petition assessments is in the nature of contractual duties. Instead, the Court found that obligations to pay post-petition assessments are in the nature of covenants that run with the land and do not arise as claims until assessments are made, as provided by state law.
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
Debtor moved to value a portion of the collateral (unimproved land) securing a debt owed to a bank and guaranteed by third parties in connection with a plan of reorganization proposing to transfer that portion of the collateral to the bank in full satisfaction of its claim. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion, finding that the evidence did not prove the value of the property at issue and therefore failed to show that its value was the indubitable equivalent of Respondent’s claim.