Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and award attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500.00. Defendant did not dispute that no written responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents had been served. Without the written responses or objections, there was no discovery dispute for the Court to resolve. Based on Defendant’s failure to comply with the request and in accordance with Rule 37, the Court awarded $2,500.00 in attorney’s fees.
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 Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Order overruling Plaintiff’s objection to claim. The objection was based on the creditor’s failure to comply with the documentation requirements of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c). The creditor did not respond or appear to defend the objection; however, the Court determined that there was no proper basis to disallow the claim. The record, including Debtors’ own sworn statements and schedules, provided support for the claim. The Court declined to disallow a claim based solely on the creditor’s failure to attach the documentation required with Rule 3001(c).
Order denying Plaintiff’s post-confirmation modification, which sought to change the applicable commitment period (“ACP”) from sixty months to thirty-six months based on a reduction in income. The Chapter 13 Trustee objected, contending that post-confirmation modifications could not change Debtors’ ACP. Based on the Eleventh Circuit’s In re Tennyson holding, the Court determined that ACP is a temporal concept and that the Congressional intent of BAPCPA included requiring above-median debtors to remain in their Chapter 13 plan for five years. The Court also determined that § 1329 incorporates § 1325(b)’s disposable income test. Admittedly § 1325(b) is not explicitly included in the language of § 1329. However, §§ 1325 and 1329, read together, demonstrate that § 1325(b)’s disposable income test is incorporated into post-confirmation plan modifications. Section 1325(a) is referenced in § 1329 and § 1325(a) provides, “[e]xcept as provided in subsection(b).”
Order on Trustee’s objection to Debtor’s proposed exemption of an annuity under O.C.G.A. § 44-13-100(a)(2)(E). The Court concluded that the annuity identified in the Debtor’s schedules was an annuity exemptible under O.C.G.A. § 44-13-100(a)(2)(E) and the payments under such annuity were on account of age. The Court further provided an opportunity for the Trustee to request a hearing as to the whether the payments under the annuity were reasonably necessary for the support of the Debtor.
(DSD executed by Debtor/guarantor in his corporate capacity was invalid to convey security interest in Debtor's real property);
(denying summary judgment to plaintiff as to defendant's liability for fraud damages arising from defendant's alleged forging of deed to secure debt pledging debtor's interest in real property as security for a loan).
Order Denying United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3). The Court concluded that based on the totality of circumstances, the Debtors’ financial condition does not demonstrate abuse.
(Case reopened to allow Chapter 7 trustee to evaluate previously undisclosed asset. Creditor had filed motion to dismiss in state court on grounds of judicial estoppel)
(Chapter 13 case dismissed with prohibition to refiling and order for Debtor's attorney to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for bad faith filing)
(Adversary Proceeding dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to submit pretrial order)