Confirmation was denied because the confirmation requirements of feasibility and good faith, 11 U.S.C. §§ 1129(a)(11) and (a)(3), were not established by Debtor. Debtor’s proposed plan of reorganization included an eventual sale of the Debtor’s hotel for a minimum sum of $12,750,000.00, which the Court found to be improbable given the economic conditions, Debtor’s current performance, and lack of evidence establishing valuation of the hotel. The Court also found the plan not to be proposed in good faith where no general maintenance of the hotel is provided and the plan’s timeline for sale extended 18 months with no qualified buyer under contract. Additionally, the plan did not satisfy cramdown requirements based on the proposed interest rate for the secured creditor.
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)
(granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for nondischargeability and for failure to perfect service).
(Net funds in the hands of Ch13T following dismissal may be garnished by prepetition judgment creditor);
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
Plaintiff’s motion to hold non-party in contempt for failure to produce documents in accordance with a subpoena issued by a California bankruptcy court was denied because in that circumstance Civil Rule 37(a)(2) required the motion to be filed in the court that issued the subpoena.
Unopposed motion to reopen was denied where movant’s counsel failed to timely submit an order within the 7-day period required by BLR 9013-2(a).
Debtor’s motion to hold defendant in contempt for violating the automatic stay was denied because no stay was in effect under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4).
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
Contract construction. Lease by city does not violate public policy. An executory contract cannot be assumed in part and rejected in part. on rare occasions, a court can supply a contract with implied terms.
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
Order denying motion for stay pending appeal and motion for fee waiver on appeal. For purposes of fee waiver, court certifies that the appeals are not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).
Movants filed separate motions for an order requiring turnover of proceeds from the sales of their real properties asserting the existence of an express, resulting, or implied trust. Proceeds were held by debtor who had served as a qualified intermediary for clients desiring to effect tax-deferred exchanges of real property under § 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Court held that the written agreements did not create an express trust with regard to Movants’ funds, that parol evidence could not be used to vary the terms of the agreements, and that neither a resulting trust nor a constructive trust could be imposed. The opinion also discusses tracing of commingled proceeds and the “lowest intermediate balance” rule.
Judge Robert E. Brizendine (Retired)
(Order denying Debtor's motion for summary judgment on complaint to determine dischargeability of debt under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6). Court cannot enter summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, applicable through Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7056, when motion for such relief requires review of issues pertaining to intent or state of mind.)