Based on credible and uncontroverted evidence of value of real estate, court confirms chapter 11 plan providing "dirt for debt" treatment of one secured creditor over its objection pursuant to the "cram-down" provision of 11 U.S.C. section 1129(b).
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
Chapter 7 discharge does not affect lien on debtor’s residence. Lender did not violate discharge injunction by proceeding with foreclosure; by sending a letter to “occupant” providing information about imminent foreclosure and procedures for an occupant to apply to continue to live in the property; or by advising debtor that she is not eligible for the Home Affordable Mortgage Program because her personal liability for the debt was discharged. Court denied Debtor’s motion to reopen the case to assert claims against the lender because she had shown no colorable basis for the grant of any relief if the court reopened it. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Individual, who had brought postdischarge lawsuit against debtor and mortgage lender sought to reopen the debtor’s bankruptcy case to obtain reconsideration of stay relief order. In denying the motion, the Court noted that the stay relief order did not determine any substantive rights or have any preclusive effect in the pending litigation. The court also questioned whether the debtor’s attorney could properly decline to discuss with her the effect of her bankruptcy case on the individual’s actions in bringing the lawsuit against the debtor. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceeding and Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff initiated adversary proceeding seeking damages for non-core breach of contract claim. Construction contract between Plaintiff and Defendant contained arbitration clause compelling arbitration of contractual disputes. The Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent require the Court to enforce the arbitration clause, and the adversary proceeding was therefore stayed pending arbitration.
denying motion to withdraw as counsel for failure to send notice of intent to withdraw to client filing the motion to withdraw
Order on Trustee’s objection to confirmation of Chapter 13 plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) and 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1). The Court held that a plan which proposes to pay unsecured creditors in full, but without interest, satisfies the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(A), and, therefore, the Debtor is not required to pay all of her available net income into a plan to satisfy a trustee’s objection under section 1325(b)(1)(A). However, issues of good faith remained under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3).
(granting summary judgment in favor of creditor and finding debt for embezzlement nondischargeable).
Judge Robert E. Brizendine (Retired)
(Plaintiff sought determination of nondischargeability of certain debt arising from retail charges under 11 U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(2) and with regard to presumption period set forth in 523(a)(2)(C). Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, directing case to trial on issue of Debtor's intent in making disputed charges.)
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
Disclosure Statement in Chapter 11 case disapproved for not providing “adequate information” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1125 because it provided no facts or analysis to show that the plan was superior to liquidation and no information to show how Debtor would generate the earnings needed to fund the plan.