Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss was based on a finding that service was proper pursuant to Rule 7004(g) and that despite the complaint failing to specify a nondischargeability subsection under 523, the factual allegations were sufficient to make out a section 523(a)(2)(A) claim.
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 denying a creditor’s motion for allowance and payment of Chapter 11 administrative expense where the creditor sought allowance of a Chapter 11 administrative expense for franchise services it provided the Debtor from December 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010. Since the Court never approved the franchise contract, and the services were provided after the senior secured creditor obtained relief from stay and a court-appointed receiver was appointed, the expenses were not necessary or actual expenses necessary to preserve property of the estate. The creditor reported that it received payment for the period prior to the court-appointment receiver was put in place.
Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was based on the allegation of sufficient facts to grant turnover under § 542(a) and enjoining Debtor to enter property at issue.
Order imposing sanctions on the law firm of Semrad and Associates and designated individuals for a pattern or practice of filing documents with the Court, which included an electronic signature from the Debtor, yet the information actually signed by the Debtor on file either differed from the signed document in the file or there was no signed document on file. Sanctions were imposed pursuant to Rule 9011 for these violations of Local Rules 5005-7(b) and 5005-5(c), which govern electronic filing practice. Imposition of sanctions was based on testimony at the show cause hearings and the report submitted by the United States Trustee. The United States Trustee selected two hundred cases to review and found the following: discrepancies including changes to: (1) property valuation, (2) claims valuation, (3) the security status of creditors’ claims, (4) the list of creditors, (5) the statement of financial affairs, (6) the means test form, and (7) the terms of the proposed Chapter 13 plan. The report noted “that in almost every case, the Semrad firm modified the date the debtors signed the petitions.” Also, in three of the twenty-two cases, the debtors appeared to have signed uncompleted Chapter 13 Plan with zeroes,” with the actual terms of the plan completed after the signing.
Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment where sufficient facts were alleged to grant the United States Trustee’s objection to discharge under § 727(a)(8).
Order partially granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment where there was sufficient factual allegations in the record to invoke the presumption of nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(C).
Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, holding that a creditor that delivered goods to the debtor pre-petition is not entitled to the new value defense under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(4) when that creditor has been paid in full on a § 503(b)(9) claim regarding the same pre-petition deliveries.
Judge Robert E. Brizendine (Retired)
(Dispute over whether payment of certain debt ordered under divorce decree constituted domestic support obligation under 11 U.S.C Section 523(a)(5) and/or (a)(15). Summary judgment granted in favor of Plaintiff.)
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
Motion or complaint to strip off wholly unsecured junior lien in chapter 13 must be predicated on a chapter 13 plan that provides for such a modification. Because plan was silent as to treatment of claim, motion to strip off unsecured junior lien on residence in chapter 13 denied without prejudice.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Chapter 13 debtor contends that he has funds in a bank account that have been attached by a creditor who may be a branch of the German government. The Court has exclusive jurisdiction of the debtor's property under 28 U.S.C. 1334(e)(1) and because the account is in the United States no question of the extra-territorial reach of this jurisdiction is presented. Because jurisdiction of the property of the estate is in rem, any sovereign immunity does not preclude exercise of jurisdiction. The bank is obligated under section 542(b) to pay the funds to the trustee; if the creditor has an interest in the funds, the funds constitute cash collateral that cannot be used without providing adequate protection. In order to facilitate administration of the case, the court orders payment of the funds in the account into the registry of the court, with any liens to attach to the funds, pending further order and enters a bar order requiring the bank and the creditor to assert any interest in the account, in the absence of which any such interest will be deemed waived and forever barred.