All Opinions by All Judges

 

Docket Date	Judge	Description	Case(s)	PDF
12.11.2008	MGD	In re: Charles S. Alba and Susan K. Alba, Debtors, Denying Creditor’s motion for relief from stay when Creditor failed to establish a prima facia case showing that Creditor held a valid security interest in Debtors’ property. The Creditor’s only evidence of a possible security interest included an unsigned security agreement marked “copy,” a signed loan agreement that referred to the existence of separate documents creating security interests, and the loan officer’s testimony that he remembered the Debtors signing the security agreement. The Court found insufficient evidence of the Debtors’ intent to create a security interest in favor of Creditor in Debtors’ personal property.	BK 08-72093 (Docket No. 61)	View
11.25.2008	MGD	Charles Michael Vaughn, Debtor, Denying Debtor’s exemptions in a watch and a boat, which Debtor concealed from the Chapter 7 Trustee, based on the Court’s authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to prevent abuse of the bankruptcy process. Also denying Trustee’s request to surcharge Debtor’s remaining exemptions to cover the administrative costs incurred by the estate as a result of Debtor’s concealment. The Bankruptcy Code provides specific circumstances for using a Debtor’s exempt property to satisfy administrative expenses, and provides specific remedies for a debtor’s failure to turnover estate property, but the circumstances of Debtor’s case did not justify using the Court’s equity power to grant a surcharge.	08-64060 (Docket No. 152)	View
11.19.2008	JB	In re MB Properties, LLC; The debtor was a corporation and under Bankruptcy Rule 9001(5), the debtor was defined as any and all officers, members or persons in control. Debtor’s principals fell within the scope of the definition of “debtor” pursuant to Rule 9001(5) and could be examined under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 when the Court so ordered.	BK 08-61492 Doc#24	View
11.18.2008	MGD	Linda Coty Bullock, Debtor, Denying Creditor’s motion to dismiss case and denying Creditor’s motion to validate foreclosure sale, based on the inapplicability of 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2). Although Debtor’s prior case was dismissed after Creditor had filed a motion for relief from stay, that case was a Chapter 13 case for which Debtor was ineligible, Creditor sought to have Debtor’s prior case converted to a Chapter 11, and Debtor had extensive equity in property securing Creditor’s debt. Therefore, Debtor’s dismissal of the Chapter 13 case was not in response to Creditor’s motion for relief from stay, the subsequent Chapter 11 filing did not represent the harm that 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2) is intended to remedy, and the bankruptcy estate was best served by preserving equity in Debtor’s property.	08-43724 (Docket No. 13)	View
11.17.2008	JB	In re Carlos Ramos Henry; (11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a), 727; Part VII Fed. R. Bankr. P. (Creditor’s letter which alleges Debtor is hiding assets and objects to discharge and dischargeability of a judgment is construed as a motion to extend the time to file and serve a proper complaint in accordance with Part VII of the Fed. R. Bankr. P.)	Case No. 08-75452 Doc#15	View
11.14.2008	PWB	Maxine Ewing v. United States of America (In re Ewing), (Order denying Debtor’s Motion for Contempt for Violation of the Automatic Stay by the Internal Revenue Service/United States of America. IRS’ setoff of 2007 prepetition federal tax refund against 1996 prepetition federal income tax liability pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6402(a) did fell within the exception of 362(b)(26) and did not violate the automatic stay. Further, IRS has discretion to determine how such overpayments are applied.	08-60367 Doc#41	View
11.05.2008	WHD	In re Bolar, (order recharacterizing claim as nonpriority unsecured claim for marital property settlement and overruling objection to confirmation pursuant to section 1322(a)(2), after concluding that debt owed to debtor's ex-spouse was not in the nature of alimony or support).	BK 08-10350 Doc#49	View
10.28.2008	MHM	In re Farris ; (Denial of motion for reconsideration of dismissal order);	BK. 04-95802;	View
10.21.2008	JB	In re Foremam; Reaffirmation Agreements - Court does not have authority to allow debtor to rescind a reaffirmation agreement unless debtor gives timely notice of the rescission to the creditor.	Case No. 08-67230 Doc#25	View
10.16.2008	MHM	In re Toweh ; (Debtor's motion to reopen granted: Debtor allowed to file a reaffirmation agreement "made" before the discharge was entered);	BK. 07-81635	View
10.16.2008	MHM	UST v. Bahamundi ; (Denial of motion for reconsideration of order denying UST's motion to dismiss because UST failed to satisfy burden of proof);	BK 08-69596;	View
10.14.2008	WHD	Watts v. Crane Grading Company, (granting summary judgment to trustee on complaint to avoid preferential transfer).	AP 05-1127 Doc# 20	View
10.14.2008	MGD	Gordon v. US Department of Education, Summary Judgment for Debtor, finding an undue hardship and discharging Debtor’s student loan debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Debtor was 62 years old, had a history of health problems, had limited education, lacked stable employment, and had attempted to pay her student loan debts through the years.	07-09049 (Docket No. 36)	View
10.13.2008	MHM	In re Gish ; Order directing DA to turnover prepetition retainer as property of the estate);	bankruptcy case No. 07-74427;	View
10.10.2008	MHM	In re Codjoe ; (Debtor presented insufficient information to show she is entitled to waiver of filing fee); Case was dismissed by order entered 10/28/08.	bankruptcy case No. 08-76964;	View
10.10.2008	MHM	In re O'Dell; (Reaffirmation agreement was "made" pre-discharge when Debtor and the creditor executed the agreement pre-discharge, but Debtor's attorney executed the agreement after entry of the discharge);	BK 08-67027;	View
10.10.2008	MHM	In re Watts; (motion to extend Rule 4007 bar date was untimely when it was filed one day after last day of previous extension of time; also where no contested matter or adversary proceeding is pending, bankruptcy court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to approve a settlement about dischargeability);	BK 08-69513	View
10.10.2008	MHM	Harris v. Pullen; (stay pending appeal denied where movant failed to offer to post supersedeas bond and failed to show likelihood of success on appeal and failed to show irreparable injury);	BK 07-65415;	View
10.06.2008	PWB	HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Harry W. Pettigrew, Chapter 7 Trustee (In re Southstar Funding, LLC), (Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying Trustee’s motion for summary judgment. Debtor held legal title to loan in trust for the benefit of the Plaintiff, its equitable owner and, as a result, the loan is not property of the Debtor’s estate. Prepetition transaction did not effect a transfer of anything more than bare legal title to the Debtor for the purpose of permitting it to sell the loan to another purchaser on behalf of the Plaintiff and to remit the sales proceeds to the Plaintiff; it did not transform the Plaintiff’s ownership interest into a security interest.)	AP 07-6524 Doc#48	View
09.30.2008	MHM	In re Dean; (For above-median-income debtors in a Chapter 13 case, "projected disposable income" will be calculated based upon the actual income Ds expect to earn during the term of the plan less the actual projected expenses as calculated under §707(b)(2)(A) and (B), i.e. the form B22C expenses);	BK 07-73132	View
09.30.2008	MHM	Kerr v. Couchell (In re Christou); (Mere passage of time does not constitute prejudice sufficient to deny motion to amend complaint and to reopen discovery);	AP 07-6609	View
09.29.2008	CRM	In re Tennyson, Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation; (Confirming a 36-month plan for an above-median income debtor over Trustee’s § 1325(b)(1)(B) objection; holding that with respect to § 1325(b)(1)(B), the applicable commitment period, prescribed in 1325(b)(4) for an above-median income debtor, is irrelevant when the debtor has no projected disposable income);	BK 07-78937 Doc#24	View
09.29.2008	MGD	Spinner v. Cash In A Hurry, LLC, Judgment for Plaintiff for Truth In Lending Violations on the Motor Vehicle Pawn Contract, 15 U.S.C. § 1632(a), and damages awarded for willful stay violation for the postpetition sale of Debtor’s car, 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) (including emotion distress damages), based on excessive interest rate charged by Defendant which voided the pawn transaction by operation of law, O.C.G.A. § 14-12-131(b), and Defendant lost the automatic forfeiture benefit of the Georgia Pawnshop Act;	06-6415 (Docket No. 34)	View
09.18.2008	CRM	In re Allied Holdings, Inc. et al., (sustaining debtor's objection to claim arising from the sale of a business)	BK 05-12515 Doc#4040	View
09.08.2008	PWB	In re: Employment and compensation of R. Scott Cunningham as counsel for debtors in pending cases. Employment and Compensation of R. Scott Cunningham as Counsel for Debtors in Pending Cases. Attorney convicted of felonies in the district court and sentenced to prison filed five new bankruptcy cases on the day his incarceration began and failed to withdraw from representation of debtors in 102 Chapter 13 cases, despite inability to represent clients while in prison. Court imposed sanctions in favor of Chapter 13 Trustee and the Clerk's office to compensate for time and expenses incurred on account of attorney's failure to comply with his professional duties.	06-00401 Doc#48	View
09.04.2008	WHD	Redwine v. Sholar, , entered (denying motion to dismiss complaint objecting to discharge and dischargeability; Court could not take judicial notice of the fact that the plaintiff had previously filed bankruptcy and failed to disclose claim against the defendant-debtor for purposes of establishing defense of judicial estoppel).	AP 08-1013 Doc# 15	View
08.29.2008	REB	In re Yoo Sun Chi, (Order granting Trustee's motion for summary judgment and denying Debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 727(a)(5)).	AP 06-9069	View
08.28.2008	MGD	Wells Fargo Auto Finance v. Jimmie Lue Smith (In re Jimmie Lue Smith), Judgment for Debtor; debt owing to assignee car creditor deemed dischargeable when car creditor failed to carry its burden of proof regarding Debtor's intent to deceive and original seller's justifiable reliance at trial; Debtor was co-signor on contract and co-maker on the note; and car creditor sought its debt to be nondischargeable pursuant to Debtor's alleged false representations under § 523(a)(2)(A));	07-6242 (Docket No. 19)	View
08.22.2008	PWB	In re: Joseph Travis Sanders and Hope Lane Sanders - Entered Court issues show cause order to Chapter 13 debtor's attorney for failure to appear at hearing.	BK 08-40879 Doc#34	View
08.22.2008	PWB	In re: Marvin B. Brooks, II - Court issues show cause order to Chapter 13 debtor's attorney for failure to appear at hearing.	BK 07-63364 Doc#50	View
08.18.2008	JB	Rojay V. Howell, (11 U.S.C. § 524(c); Debtor filed pro se motion to reaffirm a debt, but failed to file the Reaffirmation Agreement. Debtor must file the Reaffirmation Agreement before the Court can consider Debtor’s motion to reaffirm and meet the statutory test including that the Reaffirmation Agreement must be made before the discharge is granted; that the creditor make certain disclosures; and that the Reaffirmation Agreement does not impose an undue hardship and is in the best interests of Debtor);	BK 08-71169 Doc#27	View
08.12.2008	MHM	In re Gresham ; (The automatic stay render a state court contempt order void even though creditors were not listed in Debtor's bcy petition);	BK 06-60027;	View
08.12.2008	MHM	In re Gresham ; (The automatic stay render a state court contempt order void even though creditors were not listed in Debtor's bcy petition);	BK 06-60027;	View
08.12.2008	JB	Horn et. al. v. Farley (In re Farley), (11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6); Rule 55; default judgment under § 523 cannot be granted when complaint does not allege elements of the claim);	AP 07-6312 Doc#21	View
08.07.2008	MHM	In re: Pullen v. Harris; (Sanctions imposed against creditor who threatened to arrive at Debtors' residence with police and a locksmith)	BK 07-65415	View
08.07.2008	JB	In re Dingley; (Service in an adversary proceeding on an insured depository institution was not proper);	AP 08-9034 Doc#3	View
08.04.2008	PWB	Antonio Marco Acosta Entered on Court issues show cause order to Chapter 13 debtor's attorney for failure to appear at hearing.	BK 08-40623 Doc#36	View
08.01.2008	JB	Dennis v. Dennis, (11 U.S.C. §§ 522(f)(1)(A), 523(a)(5); Debtor’s motion to avoid a lien under § 522(f)(1) is denied. Judicial liens based on domestic support obligations are not avoidable under the lien avoidance statute)	BK 08-69128 Doc#16	View
07.31.2008	MGD	Ragsdale v. Meir Shoshan, et al. (In re Meir Shoshan), (Conditionally denying Debtor's request for appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent Debtor's son's one-third interest in real property subject to the Chapter 7 Trustee's § 363(b) and (h) motion to sell because Debtor, as legal guardian for his son, could represent the interest of his minor son under Bankruptcy Rule 7017(c), Debtor's identical one-third interest in the property aligned with the interests of his minor son, and Debtor made no allegations that his representation of his son's interest was inadequate; the Court authorized Debtor to appoint a guardian with costs coming from the proceeds of his portion of the sale of the subject real property if Debtor determined his representation of his minor son's interest was inadequate);	08-6057; (Docket No. 17)	View
07.30.2008	MGD	In re Grace Johanna McCarthy; (Denying pro se Debtor's Motion to Recuse Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455 because Debtor made no substantiated allegations or provided evidence of the Court's favoritism or antagonism, instead Debtor's allegations were in reference to the Court's statements at a hearing regarding applicable burden of proof requirements);	03-64009; (Docket No. 160)	View
07.29.2008	MGD	Awald, et al. v. Bienvenu; Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c) based on the Plaintiff's claims "arising in" the underlying bankruptcy proceeding and Plaintiff's failure to prove that the claims could be timely adjudicated in state court; Plaintiff's claims "arise in" the underlying bankruptcy proceeding (In re Halo Technology Holdings, Inc., case numbers 07-50480 through 07-50481, 07-50486 through 50494, 07-50496 (Bankr. D. Conn.)) because the implicated Director and Officer's liability policy was an asset of the bankruptcy estate, with the debtor-in-possession as a named insured, and the proceeds of the policy were also an asset of the bankruptcy estate; the imposition of the automatic stay to any proceeding involving a bankruptcy estate assets would not allow Plaintiff's to timely adjudicate the matter in state court);	07-06582 Doc#28	View
07.28.2008	JB	Fridella v. Renaissance Homeowner Association, Inc., (11 U.S.C. § 522 (b) and (f)(1), O.C.G.A. § 44-3-232; Debtor’s motion to avoid lien on her residence is denied. Respondent’s lien appears to be a homeowner association’s statutory lien and such a lien is not avoidable under § 522(f)(1). The lien avoidance statute applies only to certain types of judicial liens or a nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interest in certain types of personal property);	BK 07-70108 Doc#54	View
07.21.2008	WHD	In re Buciarelli, (order finding violation of the automatic stay, but awarding no damages because debtor demonstrated no injury).	BK 07-13114-whd, docket number 19,	View
07.18.2008	WHD	Chase Bank, NA v. Huynh, (denying summary judgment on nondischargeability of credit card debt under section 523(a)(2) due to lack of evidence supporting the creditor's claim that the debtor incurred charges without the subjective intent to repay).	AP 07-1026-whd, docket number 19,	View
07.17.2008	JB	In re Johnny Simmons; (Debtor requested relief or direction with respect to real property in Mississippi purportedly sold at a tax sale by the Town of Liberty, Mississippi for Debtor’s failure to pay property taxes. The Chapter 7 Trustee and counsel for the Town of Liberty and the individual who purportedly bought the property at the tax sale are ordered to appear and show cause why the tax sale should not be declared void)	BK 05-92328 Doc#153	View
07.16.2008	PWB	New Equipment Leasing, Inc. v. Sideris (In re Sideris), Order granting Chapter 13 Debtor’s motion to dismiss 523(a)(6) complaint for failure to state claim. Section 523(a)(6) claim not excepted from a chapter 13 discharge and facts as alleged did not state claim under 1328(a)(4).	AP No. 08-6322	View
07.14.2008	PWB	Glass v. Isotec International, Inc. (In re Southwest Recreational Industries), Order denying motion to stay post-judgment discovery and collection pending appeal.	AP 05-4066,Doc. No. 84	View
07.11.2008	CRM	Allied Holdings, Inc. v. Volvo Parts North America, Inc., (granting summary judgment to debtor and finding that creditor violated section 362(a)(3) by receiving overpayments postpetition and refusing to return the overpayments upon the debtor's request; rejecting the creditor's contention that it was entitled to retain the overpayments as recoupment of its prepetition claim).	AP 06-10130-crm, docket number 73,	View
07.09.2008	WHD	Progressive v. Mann (In re Parker), (dismissing insurance company's complaint for declaration that insurance company was not required to defend the trustee in litigation against the estate because the trustee was not the named insured under the policy and the debtor, who was the named insured, was no longer a named defendant in the litigation).	AP 08-1002-whd, docket number 17	View
07.09.2008	JB	ilshire Credit Corp., as Servicer for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. v. Brown (In re Brown), (The Court needs more facts to determine whether the exception to the automatic stay found in § 362(b)(22) applies. This is the exception with respect to the continuation of any eviction or dispossessory proceeding involving residential property when the landlord has obtained a judgment for possession of the property before the date the bankruptcy case is filed);	BK 08-69728 Doc#14	View
07.07.2008	PWB	In re John Leroy Howard and Nohemi Beltran Howard, Order (1) denying Litton Loan Servicing, LP’s motion to declare tax sale void and (2) retroactively annul the stay. During the pendency of the Debtors’ case, Rockdale County Georgia conducted a tax sale as to the Debtors’ residence at which American Lien Fund, LP was the purchaser. Neither Rockdale County nor ALF had notice of the bankruptcy case. The Debtors had not opposed stay relief by Litton. Litton, the holder of a deed to secure debt on the Debtor’s residence, requested that the Court set aside the tax sale as being void in violation of the stay. ALF sought retroactive annulment of the stay. Held: (1) Litton has standing to seek a determination that an act in violation of the stay is void; (2) the tax sale was not excepted from the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(b)(24) because ALF was not a “good faith purchaser” as contemplated by 549(c); (3) retroactive annulment of the stay to validate the tax sale to the extent valid under state law was warranted. The Court found that the Debtor had no interest in the property and it was of no value to the estate; neither Rockdale County nor ALF had notice of the bankruptcy; and Litton had failed to protects legal and financial interest in the property by recording its interest. Had Litton recorded its assignment, it would have received notice of the tax lien by Rockdale County. Litton’s remedy remained redemption in accordance with Georgia law.	BK 06-61345, Doc. No. 68	View
07.01.2008	PWB	In re Randall Wayne Finney and Patricia Elaine Finney, Chapter 7 trustee sought excess proceeds resulting from foreclosure of debtors’ residence which were the subject of an interpleader action in Cobb County, Georgia. Cobb County Superior Court attempted to transfer case and interpleader funds to bankruptcy court. Trustee asserted interest derived from stay relief order which provided that excess proceeds from foreclosure should be paid to the chapter 13 trustee for the benefit of the estate. Held: Registry funds retained, but file returned to Cobb County because bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction since no party sought removal of the action. Court found that it was appropriate to permit the superior court, which has concurrent jurisdiction with regard to disputes concerning the funds, to adjudicate issues of entitlement to funds if it deems it appropriate to do so. Court questioned advisability of provision in the stay relief order which provided for excess proceeds to be paid to the [chapter 13] trustee for the benefit of the estate which the chapter 7 trustee relied on for a basis for seeking the funds, noting that even if the trustee had received the surplus funds from the foreclosure sale, the trustee would have had the responsibility to hold them for the benefit of whoever was entitled to them under applicable law; the surplus funds could not become unencumbered property of the estate.	Case No. 05-83587, Doc. No. 89	View
06.13.2008	WHD	Israel v. Direct Loans; (denying motion to dismiss for lack of service).	AP 08-1701, doc#6	View
06.13.2008	JB	Ragsdale, Trustee v. Ojemeni (In re Ojemeni); (11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 548; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Trustee’s motion for partial summary judgment on fraudulent conveyance claims (both factual and constructive fraud) and preference claims denied as there are material facts in dispute)	Adv. Pro. No. 07-6412 (Docket #25);	View
06.02.2008	WHD	In re Cagle, bankruptcy proceeding no. , entered (ordering granting motion to reconsider order disallowing claim).	07-11689-whd, docket number 30	View
05.30.2008	JEM	In re: Sandra Sheppard Pro se debtor moved to reopen the case to enable her to sue a lender that had foreclosed on her residence. Motion denied. If the claim had been abandoned by the trustee, as debtor alleged, the Court lacked jurisdiction, and if the claim had not been abandoned, only the trustee could sue on it. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-65467 Doc#44	View
05.29.2008	WHD	In re King, (lifting automatic stay to permit creditor to perform setoff).	BK 08-10892, doc#32	View
05.25.2008	MHM	In re Pullen; (Ch 13 and §362(c)(3) good faith filing) on appeal to USDC 1:07-CV-1927-RLV.	BK 07-65415	View
05.23.2008	JEM	In re: Merrill Lynch v. Odum Plaintiff sued Debtors, one of whom had worked for Plaintiff as an account representative, to determine the dischargeability of debt that included debt assigned to Plaintiff by one of its customers. Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel, which had also represented the customer, on the ground that if the amount paid by Plaintiff to the customer for her claims turned out to exceed the amount of any debt owed by Defendants to the customer, Plaintiff might sue the customer to recover the difference. The Court denied the motion because the motion was based on speculation, not an actual conflict, and because Defendants had not timely filed a motion to disqualify, having raised the issue in January 2007 in state court litigation. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 07-9048 Doc#40	View
05.23.2008	CRM	In re Chandler; (Creditor’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Debtor’s Motion to Reopen granted as Debtor was barred by res judicata from relitigating the dischargeability of the debt it owed to the creditor as the matter had been fully litigated in state court)	BK 02-65783 Doc#58	View
05.22.2008	JEM	In re: CEP Holdings v. Kimbrell In 74 adversary proceedings, Debtors in possession sued numerous individuals, a few of whom were insiders of Debtors, to recover preferences and fraudulent transfers. The proceedings were consolidated for the purpose of trying the issue of whether Debtors had engaged in a Ponzi scheme. The Court found that the Debtors had promised public investors extraordinary returns but had no business or assets that could fund the promised returns and that they operated a Ponzi scheme. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 07-6382 Doc# 54	View
05.16.2008	MGD	Evans-Lambert v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied based on the Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy Rule 9023's standard, and the Court’s previous Summary Judgment Order deeming Plaintiff’s student loan debt nondischargable remains unchanged	AP 07-5001 Doc#43	View
05.12.2008	JEM	In re: Dugan v. Leather Bella Motion for leave to amend complaint pursuant to Civil Rule 15(c) to add new defendant denied, where plaintiff made no showing that new defendant had knowledge of the pendency of the adversary proceeding during the 120-day period following its commencement. No presumption of receipt of process arose where the envelopes addressed to an individual who was an officer of the defendant sought to be added were mailed to an address that the existing defendant, the officer and the defendant sought to be added had vacated 9 months prior to the commencement of the proceeding. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 06-6500 Doc$30	View
05.07.2008	JEM	In re: CEP Holdings v. Zavala Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was denied because service of process on the individual Defendant at a post office box did not comply with Bankr. Rule 7004(b)(1) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 07-6498 Doc#25	View
05.07.2008	JEM	In re: Merrill Lynch v. Odum Non-parties to adversary proceeding moved for protective order to quash subpoenas duces tecum and to bar their depositions on the ground that they were not parties, there had been no showing that any information they might have would be relevant and plaintiff had not shown a substantial need for their testimony. Motion denied as without merit to the point of being friviolous. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 07-9048 Doc#34	View
05.05.2008	WHD	Howell v. Noble, denying motion to dismiss complaint for avoidance of fraudulent conveyance).	AP 07-1060 doc#19	View
05.01.2008	MGD	In re Sims; Court’s sua sponte Order provides Debtor with an extended period to file the requisite § 1328(a) certificate in order to obtain a discharge. Debtor has completed his plan earlier than expected due to his particular circumstances, and the Court deemed that additional time and an Order directing the filing of the Certificate was reasonable based on this relatively new BAPCPA requirement for discharge.);	BK 06-62756; Doc#48	View
04.18.2008	PWB	National Income Tax Service, Inc. v. Dorsey (In re Dorsey), Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s objection to discharge claims under §§ 727(a)(2) and (a)(4) fail to state claims for relief. Complaint’s alleged facts that the debtor, behind on her mortgage payments, executed a warranty deed conveying her residence to the Plaintiff; that Plaintiff agreed to pay the past due mortgage balance; that the debtor agreed to lease the property back for twelve months; and that the debtor defaulted on rent payments to the Plaintiff and then filed a bankruptcy case on eve of eviction proceedings commenced by the Plaintiff, are insufficient to support a finding of intent to hinder, delay or defraud under § 727(a)(2). Debtor’s disclosure of incorrect social security number which was later corrected and multiple disclosures in schedules regarding residence do not support finding of “false oath” under § 727(a)(4) where Plaintiff has offered no evidence of intent.	AP 07-6666 (Doc. No. 5)	View
04.18.2008	PWB	In re Coates, Order and Notice directing eCast Settlement Corporation to file statement explaining why it failed to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(e)(2); what procedures it follows to insure compliance with Rule 3001(e)(2); and the reasons that the amount it states in its unsecured proof of claim exceeds the amount in the alleged assignor’s claim.	BK 06-71205 Doc#38	View
04.18.2008	CRM	Layng v. Mary Brooks (In re BCC Systems, Inc.); (Trustees’s Objection to Claim and Motion to Avoid pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §544 is denied as the Trustee’s strong-arm powers under § 544(a)(1) did not give him priority over the Respondent’s unrecorded equitable interest in the vehicles at issue.);	BK 05-84208 Doc#62	View
04.17.2008	MGD	Free at Last Bail Bonds v. Franklin-Graham; Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted based on a finding of non-dischargeability pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(B), and Debtor’s discharge was denied under § 727(a)(4)(A));	BK 05-06585 Doc#43	View
04.17.2008	JB	In re Rafael Borrero, Jr. and Amina Nicole Borrero; (11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B); Debtors’ motion to extend automatic stay is unnecessary and denied as the statutory section is inapplicable. Although Debtors had a previous Chapter 7 case pending within the preceding one-year period, Debtors received a discharge and that case was closed rather than dismissed)	BK 08-65660 Doc#14	View
04.15.2008	JEM	In re: Brian Bennett Chapter 7 Trustee moved for order authorizing the Rule 2004 examination of a law firm that closed on behalf of the lender a real estate transaction to which Debtors were parties. The Trustee did not serve the Debtors with the motion and was not required to by the Bankruptcy Rules. The law firm objected, citing Ga. Code Ann. § 7-1-360 that requires a financial institution to provide its customer an opportunity to object to the production of confidential information. The Court granted the motion, directed service of the order on Debtors and delayed the examination for two weeks to give Debtors time to object. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 07-77463 Doc#66	View
04.15.2008	WHD	In re Sherrod, (overruling creditor's good faith objection to confirmation of Debtor's chapter 13 plan).	BK 07-12288 Doc# 28	View
04.14.2008	JB	Detroit Phone Card, Inc. v. Verizon Business Global, LLC, Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC (In re CNS Communications, LTD); (Defendants filed motion to dismiss complaint which sought imposition of constructive trust on funds being held by one of Defendants. The Chapter 7 Trustee claimed no interest in the funds, and the Court concludes it is without jurisdiction to decide this dispute among non-debtor parties. The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to the parties pursuing any claims and remedies they have in another forum)	AP 07-6681 Doc#25	View
04.10.2008	JEM	In re: Eddie Milledge Movants sought stay relief alleging only that Debtor had another case pending within one year of the filing of the present case and that they were entitled to an order under section 362(c)(3)(A). Motions denied. The condition that no stay exists with respect to property of the debtor is not congruent with the condition that no stay exists with respect to property of the estate. Argument that motions should be granted because Trustee did not oppose them was without merit. The motions failed to allege facts that entitled them to the relief requested. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 08-62839 Doc#26	View
04.08.2008	MHM	In re Partain; (Corporate name included as "DBA" on petition of individual stricken; an individual cannot "do business as" a corporation)	BK 07-79992	View
04.06.2008	WHD	Barnette v. Bankers Financial Services, (granting motion for default judgment on defendant' counterclaim).	AP 07-1068 Doc# 6	View
04.04.2008	PWB	Galleria Investments, LLC v. Hong Duck (In re Galleria Investments, LLC), Contract for purchase of debtor’s real estate pursuant to § 363, executed in accordance with bidding procedures by “stalking horse” bidder who was also successful bidder at auction sale, provided for earnest money of $ 1 million and for the debtor to retain the earnest money as liquidated damages if the stalking horse bidder defaulted. The stalking horse bidder failed to close, and the debtor sold the property to the back-up bidder for $100,000 less. The stalking horse bidder contends that the debtor is not entitled to retain the earnest money because the liquidated damages provision is an unenforceable penalty under Georgia law. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that a bidder participating in a bankruptcy sale is bound by the orders governing the sale and that the liquidated damages provision is enforceable as a judicially approved material term of the sale. Alternatively, the court ruled that the liquidated damages provision is not a penalty under Georgia law. The court declines to decide, on motions for summary judgment, other issues relating to the debtor’s alleged defaults that, the stalking horse bidder contends, excused its performance.	BK 06-62557 Doc#220	View
04.03.2008	MHM	In re Robinson; (Electronic service upon a Registered User of CM/ECF is sufficient under Bankruptcy Rule )	BK 07-68960	View
04.02.2008	MHM	In re Center of Life Apostolic Ministries, Inc.; (Chapter 11 case dismissed with 270-day bar to refiling)	BK 08-62137	View
04.01.2008	PWB	Paige v. Byrider Sales of Indiana S, Inc. (In re Paige), Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to the Debtor’s non-core Truth in Lending Act claim for review de novo by the District Court. Court found that the creditor’s disclosure of the contract’s payment schedule (semi-monthly payments with only the starting date of the semi-monthly payments)does not comply with the requirement to disclose “the number, amount, and due dates or period of payments scheduled to repay the total of payments” as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a)(6). However, the court found the defendant in good faith relied on Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.18(g), and the accompanying Commentary of the Federal Reserve Board in its disclosure of payment terms and that based upon the defendant’s reliance on Regulation Z and the Board’s Commentary, it is shielded from liability pursuant to the good faith defense of 15 U.S.C. § 1640(f).	AP 06-6401 Doc# 36	View
03.27.2008	MGD	SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Catherine Lam, Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s claims for nondischargeability were insufficient as a matter of law where there was no evidence that Defendant acted wilfully and maliciously or intended to deceive Plaintiff.	BK 06-09096 (Docket No. 36)	View
03.27.2008	MHM	Williams v. Carson; (Alleging fraud with particularity in complaint to determine dischargeability not required; Plaintiff's state court default judgment in case in which Plaintiff did not allege fraud does not collaterally estop Plaintiff from seeking a nondischargeability determination based on §523(a)(2));	AP 07-9050	View
03.27.2008	MHM	Ultra Group of Companies, Inc. v. Porter; (where Defendant had signed the settlement agreement but refused to sign consent motion or consent order to approve the settlement, Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement granted);	AP 07-6674	View
03.27.2008	PWB	Ronald L. Glass, as Chapter 7 Trustee of Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc. v. Isotec International, The Defendant admitted receipt of preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) and raised the ordinary course of business defense of § 547(c)(2). The payments were later than 88% of the payments in the prepreference period, but not as late as a few. Under the pre-BAPCPA law that applies in this proceeding, the Defendant must show that the transfers were in the ordinary course of business as between the debtor and the transferee, § 547(c)(2)(B), and that the transfers were made according to ordinary business terms, § 547(c)(2)(C). The Court found that the payments at issue were made according to ordinary business terms in the industry and thus met the (c)(2)(C) requirement. With regard to the (c)(2)(B) requirement, the Court determined that preferential payments within the historical range that vary significantly from the typical payment pattern during the historical period are ordinary for purposes of § 547(c)(2)(B) only if the reasons for the variation in both the historical and preference periods are similar. Because the defendant had not shown the reasons for the variations from the typical pattern, the Court determined that the defendant could not invoke the ordinary course defense. The Court exercised its discretion to deny prejudgment interest requested by the trustee based on the defendant’s credible, good faith affirmative defense that, although not successful, nevertheless presented a close and difficult question for resolution.	AP 05-4066 Doc # 53.	View
03.26.2008	MHM	NATCA v. Davenport; ; (In defalcation AP, Debtors cannot set off prior contributions to fund against the defalcated amount);	AP 05-9179	View
03.26.2008	MHM	Zohbe v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (In this Truth-in-Lending-Act ( TILA) action, notice of right of rescission was not misleading);	AP 07-6194;	View
03.25.2008	CRM	Johnson v. SouthTowne Motors of Stone Mountain (In re Johnson); Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; Plaintiff sought statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1640(a)(2)(A)(i) under the Truth In Lending Act, and its implementing regulation, 12 C.F.R. 226, for Defendant's alleged failure to comply with disclosure requirements. Defendant's disclosures were sufficiently "clear and conspicuous" and no violation under 15 U.S.C. 1638(a), 12 C.F.R. 226.17(a)(1) and 226.4(d)(3) was found.	AP 05-6393	View
03.25.2008	MGD	Nicole F. Evans-Lambert v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., et. al, Order Granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Debtor, a practicing attorney, failed to satisfy any prong of the Brunner test; Debtor failed to produce any evidence to support her claims that she would be unable to maintain a minimal standard of living if she were required to repay her student loans or that she made a good faith effort to repay her student loans.	BK 07-05001 (Docket No. 36)	View
03.24.2008	MHM	Miller v. Gem Financial Services, Inc., (Pawned property that remains unsold on the petition date gains benefit of §108 to extend deadline to redeem, but when the §108 period expires, the property is no longer property of the estate or subject to turnover).	AP 06-9063	View
03.24.2008	JB	Robert S. Rosenthal; (11 U.S.C. §§ 1308, 1325(a)(9); Confirmation of Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was denied. A condition for confirmation is that debtor file all applicable Federal, State, and local tax returns for all taxable periods ending during the four year period ending on the date of the filing of the petition which Debtor had failed to do)	BK 07-66912 Doc#53	View
03.20.2008	MGD	In re Monica Y. Goggins, Order Overruling Drive Financial Services’s Objection to a Post-Confirmation Modification of Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan. Finding that a change in circumstances existed to justify modification of Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan, the Court allowed Debtor to modify her plan to change the treatment of Drive’s unsecured claim.	BK 05-42962	View
03.05.2008	WHD	In re Walker, (finding that debtors' case should be dismissed as an abuse under section 707(b)(3)).	BK 05-15010 doc#49	View
03.04.2008	JEM	In re: McComb v. Michal Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint seeking revocation of their discharges on the grounds that Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to alledge the proceeding was core and that Plaintiff lacked standing. Motion denied. Complaint alleged sufficient facts to show jurisdiction. Standing argument was based on assertion that Plaintiff is not a creditor of debtors, but Plaintiff alleges she is, and motion to dismiss cannot be granted unless a defendant can show the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling her to relief. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 06-9036 Doc#67	View
02.29.2008	WHD	Falla v. Tolbert, , entered (dischargeability of debt pursuant to section 523(a)(6), (a)(4), and (a)(2)).	AP 06-1701, Doc# 31	View
02.29.2008	WHD	Georgia Lottery Corporation v. Ingram; (dischargeability of debt pursuant to section 523(a)(4)).	AP 07-1013 Doc# 34	View
02.27.2008	JEM	In re: Walton v. Nelson Defendant moved to dismiss adversary proceeding objecting to his discharge on the ground it was “unfounded” and failed to state a claim for relief. Motion denied. “A complaint may not be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ‘unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Defendant could not show from the complaint alone that Plaintiff could not prove facts to support the claim. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 08-6025 Doc#7	View
02.21.2008	JEM	In re: Wells Fargo v. Nguyen Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied, even though the complaint had only minimal factual allegations. All that is required is that the complaint contain a "statement calculated to give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 07-6656 Doc#11	View
02.21.2008	JEM	In re: Marquisha Amir Unopposed motion to vacate dismissal order was denied where debtor’s counsel waited over four months to present a proposed order granting the motion in disregard of BLR 9013-2(a). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-80505 Doc#27	View
02.13.2008	MGD	In re Mohammed A. Faiyaz, Order Denying Dr. Suraiya Mateen’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Dr. Suraiya Mateen’s Motion to Compel Trustee to Deposit Funds into the Court’s Registry. Notice of appeal filed February 25, 2008.	BK 01-64875 (Docket No. 202)	View
02.13.2008	JEM	In re: Marshall Wallace Movant submitted proposed order that included an award of attorney’s fees and costs, but the motion did not allege that Movant incurred such expenses and did not allege the amount of any fees. Further the contract attached to the motion contained no provision for attorney’s fees on the facts alleged. That portion of the motion was highly improper and the motion was DENIED in part with respect to fees and expenses. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 07-81755	View
02.11.2008	REB	Franklin D. Sparks, Jr. v. Georgia Dep't of Revenue (In re Franklin D. Sparks, Jr.), (11 USC Section 523(a)(1), dischargeability of income tax liability).	BK 04-30380	View
02.08.2008	MHM	In re Dye; (denial of motion to stay proceedings in the bankruptcy case based upon debtor's request for inquiry by UST);	BK 06-71024	View
02.05.2008	REB	In re Scott Lamar Chambers and Mary Jane Chambers, (11 USC Sections 502(b), 522(f), preclusive effect of lien avoidance regarding treatment of secured claim through Chapter 13 plan and need for objecting to underlying claim).	BK 06-20632	View
02.04.2008	MHM	Peng v. Hill; (judgment for debtor in objection to discharge because pro se debtor lacked requisite scienter)	AP 05-9147	View
01.31.2008	JEM	In re: Erick Thomas Motion to vacate dismissal order filed two months after dismissal denied as untimely. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-83115	View
01.30.2008	MGD	In re Anthony Nzeribe, Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Stay.	BK 07-73732 (Docket No. 55)	View
01.25.2008	JEM	In re: Rhodes, Inc. Objection to claim of Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation on ground that amount of claim is overstated was denied. Claim is not for future payments but rather is presently due, such that court has no authority to recalculate the claim.	BK 04-78434	View
01.24.2008	PWB	In re Turner, Chapter 7 Trustee avoided prepetition transfer of debtor’s undivided interest in real property and thereafter sought to abandon the interest because of the burden and expense of attempting to market the problem due to title difficulties. A judgment creditor objected. The court concluded that abandonment would not reverse the avoidance of the transfer, that the effect of abandonment is that abandoned property reverts to the debtor, and that the debtor could not claim an exemption in it because he had voluntarily transferred it, and that the judgment lien consequently would, upon abandonment, attach to the undivided interest. Because the judgment lien creditor held substantially all of the debts in the case and had a remedy that could be pursued without burdening the estate, the Court permitted the abandonment. The Order also discusses the effect of the judgment lien on other property of the debtor, concluding that it could not attach to property acquired by the debtor after the filing of the petition or to exempt property.	BK 00-72597 Doc#56	View
01.18.2008	WHD	Watts v. Pride Utility Construction, Inc., (on motion for reconsideration, granting trustee's motion for summary judgment as to defendant's ordinary course of business defense).	AP 05-1134, doc#43,	View
01.17.2008	MGD	In re Mohammed A. Faiyaz, Order Denying Dr. Suraiya Mateen’s Motion to Compel Trustee to Deposit Funds into the Court’s Registry and re-entering the Court’s May 5, 2004 Order. The Court’s May 5th Order was previously remanded by the District Court for erroneous reliance on the doctrine of res judicata where a writ of certiorari was pending before the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Court re-entered its Order in light of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s subsequent denial of the writ of certiorari. Motion for Reconsideration filed January 29, 2008.	BK 01-64875 (Docket No. 198)	View
01.15.2008	MHM	In re Patterson; (DA in case converted from Ch11 to Ch7 required to turn over prepetition retainer to Trustee; "security retainer" not recognized. Also, value of DA's services did not exceed (or even equal) the amount of the retainer); entered 1/15/08; order denying motion for reconsideration entered 2/4/08; Notice of Appeal filed 2/14/08.	BK 07-61961	View
01.14.2008	WHD	Chase Bank, USA v. Huynh, (granting motion to deem facts admitted, but denying motion for expenses pursuant Rule 37(c)(2)).	AP 07-1026, doc#16	View
01.11.2008	PWB	In re Rios, Court discussed duties of attorney with regard to credit briefing requirements of § 109(h).	BK 07-66047 Doc# 37	View
01.09.2008	JEM	In re: Kelvin New Section 521(i)(3) provides the only means by which a debtor who has not complied with section 521(a)(1) may avoid automatic dismissal as of the 46th day following the petition date. Hence, Debtor’s motion for the Court to “order otherwise” after the 46th day had passed to permit late filing of pay stubs was DENIED. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 07-75092	View
01.04.2008	MGD	Hays v. Nano-Tex, Inc. Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Admission.	BK 06-04134 (Docket No. 53)	View
01.04.2008	JEM	In re: Richard Sullivan Motion by Debtor’s counsel to withdraw DENIED because counsel failed to strictly comply with BLR 9010-5 dealing with withdrawal. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-75803	View
01.03.2008	MHM	In re Pullen; (Motion to recuse denied)	BK. 07-65415	View
01.03.2008	MHM	In re Pullen; (bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction while appeal pending to consider matters related to but different from the matter on appeal)	BK 07-65415;	View
12.18.2007	MGD	Regions Bank v. Hart, Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. The facts set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint failed to make out a prima facie case under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).	BK 07-06405 (Docket No. 7)	View
12.18.2007	JEM	In re: Rhodes, Inc. Motion to file late prepetition and postpetition administrative expense granted under Pioneer test. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-78434	View
12.17.2007	MGD	Alliance Capital, Inc. v. Herzfeld, Order Denying Defendant’s Motion in Limine. The Court declined to exclude certain of Plaintiff’s exhibits on Defendant’s Motion in Limine where Defendant’s objections went to weight and not admissibility of the documents. The Court noted that the denial of a motion in limine does not result in the admission of the subject documents, but is merely a determination that admissibility is better decided in the context of the trial.	BK 05-05001 (Docket No. 59)	View
12.14.2007	MHM	In re Allen; (Denial of T's motion for conditional abandonment; T must pursue state court claim on behalf of estate);	BK 01-82408	View
12.12.2007	WHD	In re Norsworthy; (overruling debtor's objection to claim and denying debtor's request for estimation of claim on the basis that the claim was neither unliquidated nor contingent).	BK 05-15098, doc#64	View
12.12.2007	WHD	In re Norsworthy; (overruling debtor's objection to claim and denying debtor's request for estimation of claim on the basis that the claim was neither unliquidated nor contingent).	BK 05-15098, doc#64	View
12.11.2007	MHM	In re Patterson; (Debtor's attorney, who received postpetition, pre-conversion-to-Ch7 retainer was required to turn over retainer to T);	BK No.07-61961	View
12.05.2007	MHM	In re Dye; (bankruptcy court is not required to dismiss a case when D fails to comply with §109(h) or §521(a));	BK 06-71024	View
11.30.2007	PWB	In re Brown, Order denying the Debtor’s motion to dismiss her chapter 13 case pursuant to 1307(c). Because the debtor previously converted from chapter 7, she was not permitted to voluntarily dismiss her case. The court denied the debtor's motion under 1307(c) for cause because the court must consider what is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, not the debtor.	BK 04-98160 Doc.57	View
11.29.2007	CRM	Gordon v. Terrace Mortgage Co. (In re Kim); (Trustee’s motion for summary judgment granted pursuant to O.C.G.A. §44-14-33. A security deed that incorporates the terms of another document by reference does not also incorporate attestations to that document)	AP 06-06593 Doc#11	View
11.26.2007	WHD	In re Sumner, (disallowing debtor's exemption in property recovered by the Chapter 7 trustee)	BK 05-14243 DOC#33	View
11.20.2007	JB	In re Simmons; (11 U.S.C. §§ 362, 549; Chapter 7 Trustee filed motion to intervene and be substituted for debtor in a motion to set aside post-petition transfer of title for violation of automatic stay debtor had previously filed against Town of Liberty, Mississippi and tax sale purchaser. Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion is granted as he is the only party with standing to prosecute a claim belonging to the bankruptcy estate, and debtor did not allege that he suffered any individual injury or that the property at issue was exempt)	BK 05-92328 Doc#127	View
11.15.2007	JEM	In re: Calvin Irby Debtor’s motion to reopen case to pursue alleged stay violation denied where there was no stay in the case under section 362(c)(4). A dismissal of a case under section 707(a), as opposed to section 707(b), counts in the determination of the number of pending cases a debtor has within one year of the filing of the latest case. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 07-72742	View
11.14.2007	MHM	Pullen v. Cornelison; (denial of motion, in an adversary proceeding asserting a legal malpractice claim, under §329 to disgorge attorneys fee paid in prior bankruptcy case)	AP 07-6220	View
11.14.2007	JEM	In re: Erica Faye Johnson Debtor’s modification of confirmed Chapter 13 plan to surrender collateral was not approved because it is unnecessary to modify the plan to surrender collateral, and section 1329 governing modifications does not permit surrender. The only purpose of this ploy was to try to avoid having to pay the secured claim, which is the contract Debtor made in the plan. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-64062	View
11.13.2007	JEM	In re: Andre Wilson Proposed Modification of Confirmed Plan to delete a secured creditor provided for in the plan DENIED as unnecessary because the plan purported to deal only with allowed claims of creditors and this creditor never filed a proof of claim. Nothing in the plan showed that the claim was allowed. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 07-66692	View
11.12.2007	CRM	Park v. Lee (In re Lee); (Partial grant of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment under section 523(a)(2)(A) where one of the three transactions between the parties amounted to actual fraud and was deemed nondischargeable. The Defendant's purported assignment of her interest in property in exchange for a loan amounted to a false statement with the intent to deceive and on which the Plaintiff justifiably relied. The Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding the remaining transactions under section 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(6))	AP 05-6513	View
11.08.2007	JB	In re Woodard; (Debtor’s pro se motion to reopen her bankruptcy case, closed for more than 5 years, is denied. Debtor failed to identify any action she would take if the motion were granted and stated she wanted the case to be transferred to the Northern District of California. Although a bankruptcy discharge often results in a discharge of pre-petition obligations to the Social Security Administration, the ongoing dispute between Debtor and the Social Security Administration appears to involve issues unrelated to the discharge or the bankruptcy proceeding)	BK 02-94685 Doc#8	View
10.30.2007	MGD	In re Kathy Darlene Boran, Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Impose Stay. Debtor failed to rebut the presumption that her case was not filed in good faith by clear and convincing evidence.	BK 07-42460 (Docket No. 19)	View
10.29.2007	CRM	Allied Holdings, Inc. v. Volvo Parts North America, Inc., (granting defendant's motion to amend answer).	AP 06-1013 Doc 62	View
10.19.2007	JB	In re Espinosa; (Chapter 7 debtor’s motion to convert his case to a Chapter 13 case is denied as debtor’s noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts exceed the eligibility limit set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). Debtor’s objection to creditor’s proof of claim is overruled at this time. However, creditor is directed to file and serve debtor with a complete transactional history of the loan, following which debtor may file an objection)	BK 05-83785 Doc37	View
10.18.2007	JEM	Dugan, as Liquidating Agent v. The Alan White Company, Inc. (In re Rhodes, Inc.); Plaintiff’s moved to strike defendant’s answer because its counsel had withdrawn and no new counsel had appeared. Motion denied. At the time defendant corporation’s answer was filed, it was represented by counsel. While a corporation may not represent itself in federal court, withdrawal of a corporation’s counsel does not void or abrogate pleadings previously filed by that counsel.	AP 06-6452 Doc#17	View
10.15.2007	MHM	Anderson v. Midwest Holding #7 (in re Tanner); (Lease termination payment was preference); entered 10/9/07; notice of appeal filed by Defendant.)	AP 07-6034	View
10.09.2007	MHM	Dye v. BEP Creditor's Trust; (Debtor lacks standing to prosecute proceeding to determine validity, priority and extent of judgment lien)	AP 07-9017	View
10.05.2007	JEM	Silliman, Trustee v. Benson (In re Metro Builders Supply, Inc.); Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to avoid preferential transfers made by defendant-insider is granted as plaintiff established all elements of preferential transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), including that debtor was insolvent when transfers occurred and that transfers allowed defendant to receive more than he would have in a Chapter 7 case, the only defenses defendant raised in his amended answer. Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and is deemed not to contest the undisputed facts or the motion. Plaintiff’s request for an award of pre-judgment interest is denied to the extent it requests interest from the date of the transfers, which dates Plaintiff did not set forth. Plaintiff is entitled to interest, calculated from the date of demand, under a rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961	AP 06-6497 Doc#15	View
10.05.2007	CRM	In re Watson; (The Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 707(b) was denied after applying the totality of the circumstances standard required under the statute. The court found that the Debtor’s rent deduction which exceeded the Trustee’s recommended amount based on the IRS National and Local Standards was appropriate because the amount more accurately reflected the Debtor’s actual expenses)	BK 06-72831Doc#25	View
10.05.2007	CRM	In re Watson; (The Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 707(b) was denied after the applying the totality of the circumstances standard required under the statute. The court found that the Debtor’s rent deduction which exceeded the Trustee’s recommended amount based on the IRS National and Local Standards was appropriate because the amount more accurately reflected the Debtor’s actual expenses)	BK 06-72831 Doc32	View
10.04.2007	MHM	In re Cirillo; (Chapter 11 debtor's request for claims bar date denied because too soon after 341 meeting)	BK 07-72626	View
10.04.2007	PWB	In re Sears, In calculating projected disposable income, the debtors are entitled to deduct ownership expense with regard to motor vehicle under IRS Standards, without regard to whether any debt is owed on the vehicle.	BK 06-42597 Doc.29	View
10.02.2007	PWB	In re Pearl Robbins, At the originally scheduled confirmation hearing, the Debtor’s chapter 13 case was put on “ten day status” for the debtor’s attorney to provide notice to creditors of a re-scheduled § 341 meeting and confirmation hearing. The § 341 meeting could not be conducted because of a conflict the attorney had. After counsel failed to renotice the meeting and hearing, the trustee submitted a report requesting dismissal, and the case was dismissed. The attorney timely moved to reinstate the case, but did not schedule a hearing on it in accordance with the court’s self-calendaring procedures. Several months after dismissal, when the motion came to the court’s attention, the court directed the attorney to schedule a hearing on the motion. In the meantime, the attorney had filed another motion to reinstate the case, for which the Clerk’s office charged a $235 filing fee, which the debtor paid. The attorney still did not schedule a hearing on either motion. The court scheduled a hearing on reinstatement and also directed the attorney to show cause why notice had not been served as directed, why fees should not be disgorged, and why the filing fee should not be refunded. By separate order, the Court reinstated the case. In this Order, the Court required the attorney to refund the filing fee and disgorge fees he had received and directed payment of the money to the trustee. The Court referred the matter to the State Bar of Georgia for consideration of whether discipline was appropriate.	BK 07-62006 Doc#31	View
10.01.2007	MHM	In re Hummel ; (On the Means Test Form, Debtor may deduct the full amount of payments to a secured creditor even when Debtor intends to surrender the collateral)	BK 06-68931	View
09.28.2007	WHD	Andersen 2000, Inc. v. Greenwich Insurance Company, et al., (granting in part motion to dismiss Chapter 11 debtor's request for injunction, declaratory relief, and estimation of claim)	AP 06-1039 Doc#64	View
09.27.2007	WHD	Collins Brothers Corp. v. Perrine, (finding debt owed under PACA to be nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(4))	AP 05-1118 Doc#36	View
09.27.2007	WHD	Watts v. Pride Utility Construction, Inc., (denying cross motions for summary judgment on trustee's preference claim)	AP 05-1134 Doc# 39	View
09.24.2007	JEM	In re Shady Green, Inc.; Attorney’s application to employ himself as counsel for debtor in possession is denied. Counsel misstated there was a debtor in possession as the case converted to Chapter 7 case more than two years ago, and counsel presented no exceptional circumstances or reason for the late filing.	BK 04-97890 Doc#92	View
09.24.2007	WHD	In re Lowery, (rejecting trustee's argument that debtor was not entitled to exempt single damage award as both damages for personal bodily injury and payment attributable to future lost earnings)	BK 05-13536 Doc# 50	View
09.24.2007	MHM	In re Brunatti ; (motion to reopen denied because post-discharge judgment did not violate discharge injunction; claim for abusive litigation expenses does not arise until the conclusion of the underlying litigation)	BK 05-66202	View
09.21.2007	REB	Great American Insurance Co. v. William Jacent Davis (Adv. Proceeding No. 07-6036), In re William Jacent Davis & Erin Kathleen Davis (Chapter 13 Case No. A04-74475-REB); Order denying summary judgment and granting motion to dismiss complaint (applicability of dischargeability exceptions under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a) in 11 U.S.C. Section 1328(a) (pre-BAPCPA case));	AP 07-6036, BK-04-74475	View
09.18.2007	MHM	n re Richardson ; (Debtor's former spouse, who attended closing and executed closing documents conforming to the terms of the Ch7 Trustee's motion to sell, effectively waived her previously filed objections to the disbursement of the proceeds of the sale)	BK 05-84614	View
09.17.2007	PWB	Blue Thunder Auto Transport, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (In re Blue Thunder Auto Transport, Inc.), (Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) based on improper venue. Based on BAPCPA’s changes to 28 USC § 1409(b), venue in Northern District of Georgia is improper because defendant’s non-consumer, non-insider debt is less than $10,000.)	AP 07-6343 Doc#6	View
09.14.2007	JEM	Reliable Air, Inc. v. Jape and Ruse (In re Reliable Air, Inc.); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b), 157(a), (b) and (c); 11 U.S.C. § 362; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-370 et. seq., 10-1-451, and 23-2-55; Court has jurisdiction over this non-core proceeding to enter interlocutory Order on preliminary injunction. Chapter 11 plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the use of its trade name and related service mark against defendant Jape is granted. Plaintiff established a prima facie trademark infringement case by showing: (1) likelihood of success on the merits by proving it has a right to use the trade name and service mark and, unless the injunction is granted, there is a high risk of consumer confusion; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm as in a trademark infringement case injury is presumed; (3) potential injury to plaintiff of the diminishment of the goodwill of its business by allowing defendant Jape to use a similar trade name and service mark weighs in favor of granting the injunction; and, (4) public interest will be served by avoiding confusion in the marketplace and granting the injunction.	AP 07-6352 Doc#27	View
09.12.2007	JEM	Hinton v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Hinton); Debtors motions to avoid the IRS’s tax liens are denied. Such liens are neither judicial liens or nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interests, which are avoidable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), and cannot be avoided even if they impair an exemption.	BK 07-61497 Doc#36	View
09.11.2007	MHM	In re Brown ; (Ch13 case dismissed as abusive because it was filed while another active Ch13 case with a confirmed plan was pending)	BK 07-70688	View
09.10.2007	MHM	In re Dobbins; (petition for unclaimed funds denied because claimant failed to establish its entitlement to funds)	BK 02-66806	View
09.07.2007	WHD	Andersen 2000, Inc. v. Georgia Gulf Corporation, (denying cross motions for summary judgment in Chapter 11 debtor's suit for turnover of estate property and breach of contract)	AP 05-1161 Doc# 49	View
09.07.2007	MHM	In re Williams ; (Imposition of sanctions against Debtor's attorney will be deferred to allow him opportunity to voluntarily improve his practice)	BK 07-68540	View
09.06.2007	MHM	Aero Housewares, LLC v. Interstate Restoration Group, Inc. (In re Aero Plastics, Inc.) ; (non-residential real property lease, which is site of Debtor's operations, may have little or no value standing alone, but within context of sale of Debtor's business, the lease has value sufficient to secure claim of creditor who performed extensive prepetition repairs of damage caused by fire)	BK 05-60451	View
09.06.2007	MHM	National Air Traffic Controllers Association v. Davenport ; (Claims arising from Debtors failure to account for funds in ERISA-qualified benefits fund are nondischargeable under §523(a)(4); failure to account is defalcation. Failure to insure financial solvency of a plan, however, is not defalcation)	AP 05-9179	View
09.04.2007	WHD	Goodman v. Southern Horizon Bank, (granting Chapter 13 trustee's motion for summary judgment avoiding bank's security interest as a preferential transfer)	AP 06-1070 Doc# 30	View
08.30.2007	MHM	In re Thornton ; (motion to reimpose automatic stay unnecessary because §362(c)(3) does not apply to property of the esta	BK 07-70002	View
08.29.2007	JB	Townson, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Kakol (In re Willis); (Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016(b), 11 U.S.C. § 329; General Order No. 6-2006, numbered ¶5 (Bankr. N.D.Ga. 2006); On Chapter 13 Trustee’s motion against debtor’s counsel to show cause why he failed to file a Statement disclosing compensation, why he failed to file a status report within three days of returning funds to debtor, why the funds were returned in cash, and whether debtor’s funds were placed in an escrow account as represented by counsel, Court determined that counsel must promptly file a disclosure statement or supplemental disclosure statement as required by the governing law and rules, that counsel must develop practices and policies for documenting and disclosing fee arrangements with clients and to track and meet statutory, rule, and Court deadlines, that counsel must attend continuing legal education classes, confer with the State Bar, and not file more than two new bankruptcy cases a month until February 1, 2009)	BK 06-61285 Doc#75	View
08.24.2007	CRM	U.S. Trustee v. McDaniel (In re McDaniel); (On the U.S. Trustee's motion to dismiss Debtor's case for abuse, the motion was dismissed based on the totality of the circumstances. Agreeing with Judge Drake in Walker, the Court held that the Debtor properly accounted for payments due to secured creditors for property that he planned to surrender since those amount would have been contractually due had the Debtor not filed for bankruptcy protection)	BK 06-62786 Doc#35	View
08.23.2007	JUM	Medical Investment Partners, LLC and The Doctor’s Office Management Services Organization, LLC v. Bush (In re Bush); Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss counterclaims asserted by debtors/defendants is granted; debtors/defendants lack standing because the estate, not defendants, holds the claims as property of the estate, which the Chapter 7 Trustee has not abandoned.	AP 07-6274 Doc#10	View
08.22.2007	MHM	In re Dobbins; (petition for unclaimed funds denied because claimant failed to establish its entitlement to funds)	BK 02-66806	View
08.22.2007	PWB	In re Dean, (Order denying debtor’s motion to disqualify judge denied. The debtor has shown no evidence of partiality or bias to warrant recusal under 28 USC § 455. Existence of pending lawsuit brought by debtor against judge based on the judge’s rulings in a prior case does not serve as basis for recusal.)	BK 07-71556 Doc# 24	View
08.16.2007	MHM	Matar v. Matar ; (insufficient undisputed facts to establish obligation as nondischargeable under §523(a)(5))	AP 05-9096	View
08.09.2007	JEM	Segell v. Letlow (In re Letlow); (Plaintiff’s complaint to deny debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4), (a)(2)(A), and (a)(2)(B) is granted. Plaintiff demonstrated at trial that defendant knowingly and fraudulently made material, false representations under oath with respect to certain financial accounts and insurance policies listed in defendant’s bankruptcy schedules, that defendant made two monetary transfers to his children within one year of the petition date with the requisite intent to defraud creditors, and that defendant made certain post-petition transfers of estate property with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the Chapter 7 Trustee)	AP 06-6220 Doc#37	View
08.08.2007	MHM	In re Terrestrial Enterprises, Inc. ; (Ch 11 Debtor's request for claims bar date which was less than 30 days after the date first set for the §341 meeting was denied)	BK 07-70311	View
08.08.2007	MHM	In re Patterson ; (attorney employed by D following conversion from Ch 11 to Ch 7 is not entitled to payment of compensation from the estate and need not file an application to approve employment. The attorney must, however, file Bankruptcy Rule 2016 disclosure of compensation)	BK 07-61961	View
08.07.2007	CRM	Ridge v. Union Acceptance Corporation (In re Ridge); (On Debtor's objection to creditor's assignee's efforts to claim insurance proceeds totaling more than the value of the collateral at the time of confirmation, Debtor's objection is sustained pursuant to supporting case law)	BK 05-75189 Doc#26	View
08.07.2007	MHM	Cherokee Indian Hospital Authority v. Building Trends, Inc.; (denial of creditors' claims to interpleader funds, finding creditors bound by their proofs of claim that were filed or deemed filed as unsecured)	AP 06-9050	View
08.07.2007	MHM	Royal Insurance Co. v. Sims; (Order granting Debtor's motion to avoid lien not vacated to allow creditor to file late response; creditor showed neither excusable neglect nor meritorious defense)	BK 07-65562	View
08.07.2007	MHM	Green v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP; (creditor's discovery responses must be meaningful; the production of naked, unintelligible or coded records does not comply with the spirit of discovery)	AP 06-6048	View
08.03.2007	JB	Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Citizens Fidelity Mortgage Corp. v. Regions Bank (In re Money); (Crossclaim defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted, and defendant’s motion to amend its crossclaim is denied. Defendant’s original crossclaim does not allege facts sufficient to create plausible grounds to infer a cause of action under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Nor does the crossclaim as amended allege facts that would lead to liability on the crossclaim defendant’s part)	AP 05-6414 Doc#74	View
08.03.2007	JEM	Shuffler et al v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Southeastern Carpenters Regional Council (In re Shuffler); (Defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint for conduct which allegedly violates the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is granted. Defendant’s picketing does not violate any of the provisions of the automatic stay, and thus plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against defendant)	AP 07-6282 Doc#15	View
08.01.2007	JB	Tucker v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Tucker); (Debtor's motion to avoid IRS's lien denied as the tax lien is neither a judicial lien or a nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interest and exempt property remains subject to properly filed tax liens)	BK 07-64169 Doc#18	View
07.31.2007	PWB	In re Alston, A claims locator, acting as attorney-in-fact for a creditor with a claim in a chapter 13 case secured by a motor vehicle, sought to recover unclaimed funds on behalf of the creditor. The application was signed by a person as “general counsel” for the claims locator who is not admitted to practice in the Court. The Court denied the application without prejudice because (1) a person not admitted to practice before the Court cannot sign a pleading on behalf of an entity and (2) the application did not establish that the claim had not been satisfied through foreclosure or payment following conclusion of the case. The Court noted that it is not necessary for an attorney to be admitted to the Court’s bar for purposes of filing a proof of claim and that it had permitted a corporate or other entity to retrieve unclaimed funds without the necessity of engaging counsel, but that an attorney could not file a pleading on behalf of another entity without being admitted unless the attorney did so in the capacity of an officer.	BK 01-87477 Doc. #43	View
07.31.2007	MHM	In re Dye; (denial of Debtor's motion to convert from Ch 7 to Ch 11)	BK 06-71024	View
07.25.2007	reb	In re Preston Grigsby Mitchell, (motion for summary judgment, 11 USC Section 523(a)(6), collateral estoppel)	AP 06-2035	View
07.24.2007	MHM	n re Dye; bankruptcy case No. ; ( Denial of motion for stay pending appeal because no showing of likelihood of success.	BK 06-71024	View
07.20.2007	WHD	In re Davis, Denying debtor's motion for stay pending appeal.	BK 07-10035, Doc# 83	View
07.17.2007	MGD	In re Maria Angelica Nodora, Order Denying the Chapter 13 Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation and allowing Debtor to make direct payments to her student loan creditors.	BK 07-60672 Doc#18	View
07.16.2007	WHD	In re Bright, (granting in part Chapter 7 trustee's objection to exemption of life insurance proceeds pursuant to OCGA 44-13-100(a)(11)(C)).	BK 05-14093 doc# 47	View
07.16.2007	WHD	In re Bright, (granting in part Chapter 7 trustee's objection to exemption of life insurance proceeds pursuant to OCGA 44-13-100(a)(11)(C)).	BK 05-14093 doc# 47	View
07.13.2007	WHD	Automotive Finance Corp. v. Redick (granting in part motion for partial summary judgment as to dischargeability of debt for conversion of collateral under section 523(a)(6)).	AP 06-1095 Doc# 18	View
07.12.2007	MHM	n re Dye; Abandonment of D's personal property.	BK 06-71024	View
07.12.2007	MHM	In re Dye; Annulment of stay to validate postpetition consent order in which D participated but without informing the other parties participating that he had filed a bankruptcy petition the day before.	BK 06-71024	View
07.11.2007	JB	In re Baldwin; (Motion to reconsider denial of motion by post-petition creditor for Chapter 13 Trustee to disburse debtor’s exempt funds to creditor is denied in part and granted in part. Movant and debtor have a post-petition dispute being litigated in the state court, and the dispute does not involve property of or the administration of this bankruptcy estate. To the extent the Chapter 13 Trustee has already disbursed the exempt funds to debtor, Movant’s motion is moot. Motion is granted solely in order to reflect that movant alleges that debtor signed the document assigning exempt funds voluntarily and that movant disputes debtor’s contentions that she assigned exempt funds only under duress);	BK 05-72883 Doc#47	View
07.09.2007	MHM	In re Pullen; bankruptcy case No. ; (); entered 7/9/07 Order vacating emergency order to allow foreclosure sale to take place.	BK 07-65415	View
07.09.2007	WHD	In re Davis, Granting motion for relief to permit bank to exercise state law rights with regard to property foreclosed prior to petition date.	BK 07-10035 Doc# 81	View
07.03.2007	JEM	Patterson v. Georgia Department of Revenue (In re Patterson); Defendant’s second motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff failed to respond to defendant’s motion, and defendant showed that plaintiff had failed to file Georgia tax returns for the years 1985 through 1987 and such debt is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(I).	AP 06-9058 Doc#14	View
07.02.2007	MHM	In re Greene; Two months after D's IFP application was approved, D filed a reaffirmation agreement in which she proposed to reaffirm a $34,000 debtor for a pickup truck; the reaffirmation agreement showed that D had obtained employment postpetition and take-home pay was $2700 per month; the reaffirmation agreement was approved on condition that Debtor pay the filing fee she was relieved of paying when she was unemployed.	BK 07-61941	View
06.29.2007	WHD	Barnette v. Myles, Denying motion to set aside default judgment.	AP 06-1115, Doc#11,	View
06.27.2007	PWB	In re Knight, Chapter 13 trustee objects to confirmation of the debtor’s plan on the ground that continuation of direct payments on student loans results in failure to pay all disposable income to unsecured creditors under § 1325(b)(1)(B). The court concludes that the plan is potentially confirmable for two reasons. First, § 1322(b)(5) permits continuation of payments on long-term unsecured debt, and the Debtor’s use of PDI to make such payments results in all PDI being paid to unsecured creditors. Second, although the student loan payments do not qualify as a “reasonably necessary” expenditure under § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) in view of its specific exclusion of payments on debts, the circumstances surrounding the Debtor’s student loans, including their nondischargeable nature, may qualify as a “special circumstance” under § 707(b)(2)(B) that may justify a downward adjustment of PDI if the Debtor properly documents and explains them under § 707(b)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).	BK 06-70061 Doc#33	View
06.27.2007	PWB	Glass, Trustee, v. Isotec International, Inc. (In re Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc.), Trustee seeking to recover voidable preference under § 547(b) and defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court grants partial summary judgment to the Trustee that all elements of a preference have been established but concludes that there are disputed issues of fact that preclude entry of summary judgment on the defendant’s ordinary course of business defense under § 547(c)(2).	AP 05-4066 Doc#34	View
06.27.2007	MHM	In re Dye; Standard for approving T's proposed settlement.	BK 06-71024	View
06.27.2007	MHM	In re Dye; Standard for reconsideration.	BK 06-71024	View
06.27.2007	JEM	Stalzer v. Payne (In re Kelly); Plaintiff-trustee’s motion for default judgment is granted. Plaintiff’s motion shows that defendant was properly served and that defendant failed to respond. Plaintiff is not entitled to turnover of property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541, but facts she pled are sufficient to entitle her to recover the value of the property transferred under the fraudulent transfer section, 11 U.S.C. § 548.	AP 07-6132 Doc#8	View
06.26.2007	PWB	Sweat v. Sweat (In re Sweat), Order denying the Defendant’s motion to exclude issue from proposed pretrial order. If the Plaintiff had failed to properly plead the issue and thus deprive the Defendant of the ability to prepare a defense in anticipation of trial, the Defendant would have a basis for objecting the inclusion of the issue in the pretrial order. However, the Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently set forth the claim. A factual dispute as to whether the Plaintiff can prove the claim is not a basis for exclusion of the claim from the pretrial order.	AP No. 05-6331 doc.#55	View
06.25.2007	WHD	In re New Power Co. et al., Granting in part motion for payment of attorneys fees and expenses pursuant to section 503(b)(3) and (b)(4). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 02-10835, Doc#1476,	View
06.22.2007	WHD	In re Davis, Denying motion for reconsideration of order lifting stay and denying motion to invalidate prepetition foreclosure sale. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	07-10035, Doc# 66,	View
06.22.2007	PWB	Kaye v. Juanita Bynum Ministries, Inc. (In re Value Music Concepts, Inc.), Order granting summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s preference action. The Plaintiff established all elements of a preference action under 11 U.S.C. § 547 and set forth facts in its Statement of Material Facts which negated the applicability of Defendant’s affirmative defenses. Although the Defendant pled a number of affirmative defenses in its answer, it did not file a response to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and failed to carry its burden of establishing any affirmative defense.	AP 04-6210, doc. #35	View
06.21.2007	JEM	Richard v. JLA Credit Corp. et al. (In re Richard); Debtor’s motion to avoid judgment liens is denied as 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) has no applicability to property acquired after date she filed her bankruptcy petition. However, debtor is protected against such pre-petition judgment liens by 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) which provides that any effort to enforce such a void lien on property acquired after debtor filed her bankruptcy petition would violate the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction.	BK 01-84744 Doc#34	View
06.13.2007	JEM	Southwest Hospital and Medical Center, Inc., by and through its Liquidating Agent, J. Michael Weathers v. Precision Anesthesia & Associates, LLC (In re Southwest Hospital and Medical Center, Inc.); Plaintiff’s motion to avoid and recover preferential transfers is granted. 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 550(a). Defendant has failed to respond and is deemed not to oppose Plaintiff’s motion. BLR 7007-1. Plaintiff satisfied all elements of a voidable preference. Because defendant did not raise any affirmative defenses in its answer, it is proper to award pre-judgment interest along with post-judgment interest. Any claim asserted by defendant is disallowed pending payment of Plaintiff’s judgment.	AP 06-6381 Doc#21	View
06.11.2007	MHM	In re Shelton D’s Ch13 plan providing that D would continue contributing to his retirement plan ($655/mo compared to Ch13 plan payment of $550/mo) while paying a 0% dividend to unsecureds may not have been proposed in good faith	BK 06-68375	View
06.04.2007	MHM	In re Ajaka D’s §363(c)(3) motion to extend stay, heard more than 30 days after petition date, denied as unnecessary on the grounds that §363(c)(3) does not apply to property of the estate	BK 06-64920	View
06.01.2007	MHM	Unifund Financial Corp. v. Hughes Denying dismissal with 5-year bar to refiling but granting dismissal with 180 day bar to refiling	BK 04-98206	View
05.31.2007	MHM	Hays v. Paradise Mission Church, Inc. (In re Harrington, George & Dunn, P.C.) motion of Plaintiff/Trustee to disqualify Defendant’s attorney denied	AP 06-6253	View
05.25.2007	mhm	Highway 54 Property, LLC v. Manigault case dismissed with five-year bar to refiling	BK 07-67308	View
05.25.2007	PWB	GE Mortgage Services, LLC, v. Johnston Creditor who acquired, by assignment from an affiliate, a real estate mortgage executed by the debtor alleged that the debtor had committed fraud in connection with the mortgage and sought determination that its deficiency claim was excepted from discharge. Default judgment is denied because a fraud claim cannot be assigned and no fraud was committed against creditor.	AP 044052, BK	View
05.24.2007	JB	Strickland v. CADD Centers of Florida, Inc. (In re Strickland); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 11 U.S.C. § 524(a); O.C.G.A. §§ 13-6-10, 13-6-11; plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging breach of a settlement agreement and violation of discharge injunction, seeking declaratory judgment, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss all counts except that for declaratory judgment. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the counts for breach of the settlement agreement and for attorneys’ fees must be denied as both allege a cause of action and sufficient supporting facts to survive a 12(b)(6) motion. With respect to dismissal of the counts for violation of the discharge injunction and punitive damages, defendant’s motion is granted. The discharge injunction only operates against a discharged debt, and the debt at issue was held to be nondischargeable. Punitive damages cannot be recovered on a breach of contract action under Georgia law.	AP 07-6054 (Docket #21)	View
05.23.2007	PWB	In re Hayes Trustee objected to reasonableness of attorney’s fees of $4,200 in chapter 13 case. Based on modification of fee agreement to provide that the flat fee encompassed substantially all legal services that the debtor would likely require during the life of the case, the Court allowed the fee.	BK 06-42225	View
05.22.2007	PWB	Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Porter At trial, court determined that the debt of the debtor to the plaintiff for insurance fraud was nondischargeable and determined the amount of the debtor’s liability. The plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees as an element of damages under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, punitive damages under O.C.G.A. 51-12.5.1, and prejudgment interest at seven percent under O.C.G.A. § 7-4-2. Bankruptcy court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2), with consent of the parties, to enter money judgment on the nondischargeable claim.	AP 06-5002, BK 05-44583	View
05.18.2007	JB	Hays v. Hamblen Family Irrevocable Trust et al. (In re Charles Randall Hamblen and Janet Smith Hamblen); (Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); In a case involving defaults by some but not all of the defendants, a request to stay default judgments is granted. Under the Frow doctrine, it is proper to stay default judgments in an adversary proceeding with multiple defendants when there is a possibility that inconsistent judgments will result upon final adjudication)	Adv. Pro. No. 06-6394 (Docket # 86)	View
05.15.2007	WHD	In re Reeves, (granting motion for reinstatement to practice before the Court).	AP 04-17370, docket number 86	View
05.14.2007	MHM	In re Sarfraz striking power of attorney file by an individual who signed the petition and other documents on behalf of the debtor	BK 07-67117	View
05.11.2007	REB	William McGill v. Christine Laudermill (In re Christine Laudermill); motion for summary judgment, 11 USC Section 523(a)(2));	Adv. Pro. No. 06-3001	View
05.10.2007	JB	Hays v. Hamblen Family Irrevocable Trust et al. (In re Charles Randall Hamblen and Janet Smith Hamblen); (O.C.G.A. § 53-12-175(d); Defendant Gibson’s objection to Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendant Hamblen Family Irrevocable Trust (“HFIT”) for failure to properly serve the trust is overruled. Serving a trustee of a trust is, generally, sufficient service on the trust. Plaintiff served the amended complaint and summons on the trustees of HFIT. Although the trustees resigned, the resignations did not take effect for 30 days under the terms of the Trust Agreement, and under O.C.G.A. § 53-12-175(d), a trustee’s resignation is not effective unless there is a successor trustee in place)	Adv. Pro. No. 06-6394 (Docket # 83)	View
05.08.2007	CRM	In re Foster; (11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B); Chapter 13 Trustee objected to confirmation of Debtor's Amended Plan because the Debtor’s Plan proposed to contribute zero dollars to his general unsecured creditors even though his actual income and expenses, as reflected on Schedules I and J, indicated that the Debtor could afford to pay his general unsecured creditors a dividend greater than zero dollars. Holding: Court sustained the objection. Citing to authority holding that a Chapter 13 debtor’s “projected disposable income”, as employed in 1325(b)(1)(B), should be determined by reference to the debtor’s Schedules I and J to prevent manipulation of the system, the Court ordered that Debtor submit an amended Chapter 13 Plan within 15 days of entry of the Order providing for payment of general unsecured creditors based on Schedules I and J.)	BK 06-68298 (Docket # 36)	View
05.08.2007	WHD	Goodman v. Southern Horizon Bank, (denying cross motions for summary judgment on trustee's action to avoid preferential transfer of security interest).	AP 06-1070, docket number 24	View
05.03.2007	JB	In re Hamblen; (11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(11); Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion for authorization to serve as independent fiduciary to administer and terminate debtor Brookstone Fine Wood Products, Inc.’s ERISA-covered employee benefit plan is denied. Section 704(a)(11) provides that the Chapter 7 Trustee shall continue to perform the duties of a debtor if such debtor, at the commencement of the case, served as administrator of an ERISA-covered employee benefit plan. This provision does not appear applicable as the Chapter 7 Trustee failed to show that any debtor served as the administrator of the plan in question. The motion also seeks to pay “related expenses” from assets of the employee benefit plan, but the Chapter 7 Trustee has not indicated what these related expenses might be and has not served affected parties, such as the plan participants.	Case No. 05-95215 (Docket # 356)	View
05.02.2007	PWB	Christopher v. D & G Auto Sales (In re Christopher) Although it may be appropriate to object to a claim that includes unmatured interest, it is not appropriate to seek its complete disallowance on that ground; the proper remedy is allowance of the claim in the proper amount. Further, it is not appropriate to disallow a claim, without a hearing, if a response to an objection has been filed, even if the claimant fails to appear at the hearing. If the debtor has an actual objection to a claim on the merits, the court will, of course, hear it. But the court will not disallow a claim, in whole or in part, in the absence of a showing that the debtor has a valid objection that requires its disallowance under 11 U.S.C. §§ 502(b). In re Shank, 315 B.R. 799 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2004). Moreover, if the claim is secured by collateral that the debtor desires to retain, disallowance of the claim other than because it is not owed would not seem to affect the holder’s lien. Thus, the lien might survive the bankruptcy case under Universal American Mortgage Co. v. Bateman (In re Bateman), 331 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2004). If the Debtor’s objective is to retain collateral, disallowance of the claims for a procedural defect would not appear to be in the Debtor’s interest.	BK 06-42452	View
05.01.2007	MGD	In re George Wesley Taylor, Jr., Order Granting in part and Denying in part Debtor’s objection to the claim of Countrywide Home Loans.	06-76846 (Docket No. 91)	View
04.23.2007	WHD	Looney v. Owens, Denying motion to dismiss dischargeability complaint and setting case for trial.	AP 05-1706 Doc#95	View
04.20.2007	CRM	In re Allied Holdings., et al.; 17 C.F.R. section 240.14(c); Ad Hoc Committee sought an order compelling Debtors to convene annual shareholders’ meetings for 2006 and 2007 for the purpose of electing directors. SEC regulations require than a corporation that solicits proxies from shareholders must send an annual report with each proxy statement, and that the annual report must include, inter alia,audited financial statements for each of the three most recent fiscal years. Contrary to the arguments made by the Ad Hoc Commitee, even in situations when debtors do not solicit proxies, SEC regulations require that every shareholder who is entitled to vote receive information substantially similar to that found in a financial statement at least twenty calendar days before an annual meeting. Ordered that the Ad Hoc's Motion was denied to the extent it requested Debtors to convene shareholders’ meetings without complying with 17 C.F.R. section 240.14(c).	Case Nos. 05-12515 through 05-12526 and 05-12528 through 05-12537 (Jointly Administered) Doc#2920	View
04.19.2007	JEM	Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. McGraw (In re McGraw); Plaintiff’s motion seeking a default judgment that defendant’s debt in the amount of $1,914 for retail charges is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) is denied. The allegations in the complaint which are deemed admitted by defendant’s failure to answer and the insufficient specificity of the factual allegations do not support a finding in plaintiff’s favor. If plaintiff does not amend its complaint within 30 days, the Court will schedule this adversary proceeding for trial.	AP 07-6016 Doc#7	View
04.18.2007	MHM	Homecomings Financial Network v. Goodman (In re Hurt); Ch13T's Motion to Deem Mortgage Current should have been filed as an adversary proceeding, but failure to do so is insufficient grounds to reconsider the order entered granting Ch13T's motion. Also, notice to creditor's attorney who filed a notice of appearance in the bankruptcy case is sufficient notice under Rule 7004.	BK 01-61881	View
04.17.2007	WHD	In re Haynes, Granting motion for relief to permit creditor to dispossess debtor from property foreclosed upon prior to bankruptcy filing.	BK 07-10365 Doc#22	View
04.10.2007	MHM	Decision One Mortgage Co., LLC v. Brantley; The general release executed by the parties in settlement w/Debtor's insurance company released Debtor from all liability to Plaintiff, depriving Plaintiff of any claim that could be held nondischargeable	AP 04-9176	View
04.10.2007	MGD	Phenizie Burr v. I.R.S., Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. A federal tax lien is not avoidable as a statutory lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 545 and thus cannot be avoided as a preference pursuant to § 547.	AP 06-06596 (Doc#8)	View
04.09.2007	WHD	In re White, Denying confirmation of Chapter 13 plan that contained provision permitting surrender in full satisfaction of secured claim.	BK 06-12427 Doc# 38	View
04.06.2007	JEM	First American Title Insurance Co. v. Frazier (In re Frazier); Plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to determine dischargeability of its debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (a)(6) is granted. Defendant, appearing pro se, did not respond to plaintiff’s motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) allows a court to freely grant leave to amend, and Plaintiff filed the motion within four months of the answer, prior to the entry of a pre-trial order, does not appear to be filed to cause undue delay, and it will not prejudice defendant.	AP 06-9100 Doc#9	View
04.05.2007	PWB	Morris et al. v. Kelly (In re Kelly), (Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Whether the plaintiffs were independent contractors or employees under Fair Labor Standards Act and, thus, whether they were creditors for purposes of bringing a 523 or 727 action, was a fact-intensive determination inappropriate for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court declined to treat the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a motion for summary judgment since the parties had engaged in no discovery in this proceeding and where discovery had not been completed in the district court case which was pending at the time of the bankruptcy filing.)	AP No. 06-6369, Doc. No 11	View
04.04.2007	MHM	in re: Jaecksch v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. Ds sought to recover amounts paid to GMAC as secured creditor after the judicial lien was avoided.	AP 06-6256	View
04.04.2007	MGD	In re Randall and Dana Evans, Order finding that attorney fee of $4200 was reasonable based on the facts and circumstances of the case provided that the 2016 disclosure statement and plan are amended to include the language: “The fee set out above will cover all customary and usual work required during the course of this case. In the event that circumstances not presently known require more than the customary and usual services, the Debtor’s attorney reserves the right to file a fee application for additional fees.	BK 06-42115 (Doc#66)	View
04.04.2007	PWB	WFI Georgia, Inc. v. Phillips (In re Phillips), (Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief under 523(a)(2)(A). The Plaintiff’s oral statement regarding the unencumbered value of real property was a statement regarding his financial condition and, thus, was not actionable under 523(a)(2)(A) under either the broad interpretation or narrow interpretation of “statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.”).	AP 06-9028, Doc. No 13	View
04.04.2007	JEM	TI Management Investment Co. v. Miele (In re Miele); Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) is granted and defendant’s debt is non-dischargeable. Plaintiff alleged that defendant and her husband made fraudulent representations which deceived plaintiff and caused it to make various investments. Defendant-debtor’s amended response that she lacks sufficient information to deny most of plaintiff’s factual allegations and stating under oath that her statements were true and correct to the best of her information and belief are insufficient to challenge a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff demonstrated that defendant made false representations with an intention to deceive, that plaintiff relied on the misrepresentations, that the reliance was justified, and that plaintiff sustained a loss as a result of the misrepresentations.	AP 04-9216 Doc#40	View
04.03.2007	PWB	Watts v. Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, In earlier order in this preference action brought by the chapter 7 trustee, the court concluded that the security deeds held by a purchase money lender on the Debtor’s property were perfected within the meaning of § 547(e)(1)(A) at the time they were executed and delivered because, under Georgia law, a bona fide purchaser would have had inquiry notice of them at all times prior to their recordation based on the Debtor’s absence of record title and the existence of a cancelled security deed on the property in favor of another lender. On reconsideration, the court ruled that, when established by reference to a bona fide purchaser standard, the rights of a bankruptcy trustee are determined on a hypothetical basis and without regard to what an actual purchaser actually did or did not know about the facts as they actually existed. A bankruptcy trustee’s rights based on a hypothetical bona fide purchaser’s rights are neither diminished nor augmented by attributing actual knowledge or its absence to the trustee In other words, the facts cannot be changed, and the bankruptcy trustee’s rights, i.e., the legal consequences of those facts, are determined on the basis of those actual facts.	AP No. 06-6235, Doc. No. 36	View
03.22.2007	MGD	Dierkes v. Crawford Orthodontic, Order Granting Crawford’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Dierkes’ Section 362 Claims and Denying Crawford’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Promissory Note Action and Dierkes Counterclaim for Breach of Contract and Abstaining from and Remanding Claims to State Court. There was no willful violation of the stay where Crawford complied with the Court’s order for turnover. The promissory note action and the related counterclaim are state law claims, originally brought in state court, which have been abandoned by the trustee. The Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims, but to the extent that the Court may retain jurisdiction over the claims, abstention and remand are appropriate.	AP 05-06022 Doc 44	View
03.22.2007	CRM	Huntington National Bank v. Kyu Tae Cho (In re Kyu Tae Cho); 11 U.S.C. sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(2)(B); Pursuant to §523(a)(2)(A) and §523(a)(2)(B), Movant requested a non-dischargeable judgment in the amount of $19,149.96, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees arguing Debtor obtained credit from the Movant (1) under false pretenses, false representation, and/or actual fraud, and (2) by a statement in writing that was materially false, respecting the Debtor’s financial condition, on which the creditor reasonably relied. With regard to Count I, brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2)(A), Movant’s amended Complaint and accompanying evidence revealed no actual statements or representations made by the Debtor evidencing that Debtor made false statements with requisite fraudulent intent. With regard to Count II, brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2)(B), the amended Complaint sufficiently plead facts with the required specificity to establish a legitimate exception to discharge pursuant to section 523 due to use of a materially false statement in writing that was reasonably relied on by the Movant under section 523(a)(2)(b).	AP 05-6139 Doc.13	View
03.21.2007	PWB	Procter v. Tulloss (In re Procter), (Debtor’s complaint to determine that unsecured debt owed to ex-spouse arising from divorce decree is dischargeable fails to state a claim for relief. While the Debtor’s debt to the ex-spouse may not be a domestic support obligation as contemplated by § 523(a)(5), it is nevertheless a debt to a former spouse incurred by the Debtor in connection with the divorce decree and, therefore, falls within the category of debts described in § 523(a)(15) which are now excepted from discharge based upon changes made to § 523(a)(15) under BAPCPA).	AP No. 06-4112, Doc. No. 6	View
03.19.2007	JB	Royster-Clark Agribusiness, Inc. v. Mask (In re Mask); (Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for non-dischargeability of its debt pursuant to Defendant’s fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), is denied. Plaintiff failed to show that its state court judgment was entitled to collateral estoppel effect and its statement of undisputed material facts failed to demonstrate the necessary trust and fiduciary relationship. Plaintiff’s claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) will be tried. Defendant’s request for dismissal denied as it was unaccompanied by law or facts allowing the Court to dismiss this adversary proceeding in its entirety);	AP 06-6085 Doc. 21	View
03.13.2007	PWB	Baskin & Baskin v. Carlucci (In re Carlucci), Guardian ad litem fees awarded in custody dispute excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).	AP No. 05-5007, Doc. No. 11	View
03.13.2007	CRM	In re Allied Holdings., et al.; 11 U.S.C. section 1102(a)(2); Ad Hoc Committee sought the appointment of an official committee of equity security holders to represent the interests of the holders of publicly traded shares of the Debtors. Proponents of an equity committee have the burden of proof to show that equity holders are not adequately represented and the debtor is not “hopelessly insolvent”. Ad Hoc failed in its burden to prove that shareholders are not being adequately represented. Ad Hoc witness testified that Debtors' board regularly met to discuss Debtors and it was his belief that the board was doing a “good job” of representing shareholders. Motion Denied.	Case Nos. 05-12515 through 05-12526 and 05-12528 through 05-12537 (Jointly Administered) Doc.2635	View
03.13.2007	JEM	Brodsky v. Taylor and Central Pet (In re Brodsky); Movants’ motion to avoid judgment liens pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A) after case was reopened is granted. Respondent Taylor did not file a response or indicate opposition to movants’ motion. Respondent Central Pet’s arguments are without merit. Debtors may amend their schedule of exemptions after a case has been reopened. The correct date for valuing debtors’ interest in their property is the date the petition was filed, and the liens in question, when added to all other liens and to the amount of the debtors’ exemptions, exceeded the value of the debtors’ interest in property and impaired the debtors’ claimed exemptions.	BK 05-81736 Doc#38	View
03.09.2007	JEM	Jape v. Reliable Air, Inc. (In re Reliable Air, Inc.); Movant’s motion to dismiss Chapter 11 bankruptcy case on ground bankruptcy filing was improperly authorized and Court lacks jurisdiction is denied. Movant and his wife were each 50% stockholders and directors of debtor corporation and having marital and business problems. Movant’s wife and third board member authorized the filing of this bankruptcy filing. Movant filed this motion almost eleven months following the filing of the bankruptcy petition, claiming that he did not vote for filing bankruptcy and third board member who voted for filing was not properly elected as director. It is unnecessary for Court to reach the issue of whether third board member was duly elected as Court finds Movant ratified the bankruptcy filing post-petition through his participation in, his acquiescence to, and his acceptance of benefits from this bankruptcy case. Such ratification relates back to the authorization for filing as of the time it was made. O.C.G.A. § 10-6-52.	BK 05-85627 Doc#143	View
03.08.2007	REB	Aegis Mortgage Corp. d/b/a New America Financial v. Christine Renee Laudermill (In re Christine Renee Laudermill) (11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A), collateral estoppel).	AP 06-3003	View
03.07.2007	PWB	Perkins v. Crown Financial LLC (In re International Management Associates LLC) Defendant’s motion to dismiss fraudulent transfer claims denied because actual fraud claims stated with sufficient particularity for purposes of Rule 9(b). Motion for more definite statement of constructive fraudulent transfer claims denied as claims are not “vague or ambiguous.” Motion to strike immaterial matters denied because defendant has not shown that the allegations at issue have no bearing on the litigation or will cause it prejudice. 548(a)(1)(A) and (B); O.C.G.A. §§ 18-2-74, 18-2-75; FED. R. CIV. P. 8, 9, 12(e), 12(f).	AP No. 06-6421, Doc. No. 15	View
03.07.2007	MGD	In re George Wesley Taylor, Jr., Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Determine the Identity of Lien Holder and Denying Debtor’s Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Extend the Stay as to HFC. In seeking to determine which entity was entitled to receive his mortgage payment, Debtor was in effect seeking a declaratory judgment regarding HFC and HSBC’s interest in Debtor’s property and such action would have to be brought as an adversary proceeding pursuant to Rule 7001(2) and Rule 7001(9). The stay had expired as to HFC at the time Debtor filed his original Motion to Extend Stay; his Motion to Reconsider was thus denied.	BK 06-76846 (Docket No. 85)	View
03.07.2007	MGD	In re George Wesley Taylor, Jr., Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Determine the Identity of Lien Holder and Denying Debtor’s Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Extend the Stay as to HFC. In seeking to determine which entity was entitled to receive his mortgage payment, Debtor was in effect seeking a declaratory judgment regarding HFC and HSBC’s interest in Debtor’s property and such action would have to be brought as an adversary proceeding pursuant to Rule 7001(2) and Rule 7001(9). The stay had expired as to HFC at the time Debtor filed his original Motion to Extend Stay; his Motion to Reconsider was thus denied.	BK 06-76846 (Docket No. 85)	View
03.02.2007	JEM	Woolner v. LaFevor (In re LaFevor); Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of Court’s order denying summary judgment on her 11 U.S.C. § 523(A)(2)(A) claim is denied. Plaintiff did not demonstrate any change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error, the acknowledged reasons for granting a motion to reconsider, and it was untimely as it was not filed within the ten day period following the entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).	AP 06-6167 Doc#33	View
02.28.2007	PWB	Waddell v. Internal Revenue Service, In re Waddell, Although Internal Revenue Service was properly served with objection to proof of claim and notice of hearing and did not appear at the hearing, its proof of claim, as amended after the time for the hearing, is allowable as a secured claim to the extent of the value of the Debtors’ property as scheduled, net of secured claims with priority over the IRS’ liens. A tax lien is a statutory lien that is not avoidable under § 522(f)(1), and a debtor cannot exempt property from a properly filed tax lien under § 522(c)(2)(B).	BK 06-41365 Doc#34	View
02.28.2007	PWB	Hospitality Ventures/La Vista v. Heartwood 11, L.L.C., et al., (In re Hospitality Ventures/La Vista, Case No. 01-88200-PWB) The Court submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court in a non-core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033. In the proceeding, third-party plaintiff Heartwood asserts an unjust enrichment claim against third-party defendant DeKalb County based on Heartwood’s purchase of a tax fi. fa. for ad valorem taxes on real property owned by the plaintiff Debtor for more than the amount allowed in the Debtor’s bankruptcy case under the provisions of former 11 U.S.C. § 505(a). The Debtor and Heartwood had earlier settled this issue as between themselves, with court approval. The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law deal with issues raised at trial and incorporate earlier opinions with regard to motions for summary judgment and the motion of third-party defendant DeKalb County for judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of third-party plaintiff Heartwood’s evidence at trial. Based on its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court proposes that the District Court, after consideration and de novo review of them: (1) conclude that it has subject matter jurisdiction of Heartwood’s third-party claim that it should properly exercise; (2) grant Heartwood’s motion for partial summary judgment against DeKalb County (determining that Heartwood has a claim for unjust enrichment); (3) deny DeKalb County’s motion for summary judgment against Heartwood (determining that DeKalb County has no legal defenses to the claim); (4) deny DeKalb County’s motion at trial for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); (5) accept the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the proper amount of the tax due under § 505(a) based on a proper valuation of the property; and (6) enter judgment in favor of Heartwood and against DeKalb County in the amount of $59,853.07 (being the difference in the amount Heartwood paid for the tax fi. fa. and its proper amount based on a proper valuation of the property), plus post-judgment interest and costs.	AP 03-6596 Docket # 161	View
02.27.2007	JEM	Wayland v. Kap Title, Inc. (In re Wayland); Movant’s objection to attorneys’ fees portion of respondent’s unsecured claim is granted. Respondent failed to show the reasonableness of its attorneys’ fees request as it had admittedly not been billed and had not paid attorneys’ fees in connection with its pre-petition claim.	BK 06-74203 Doc#32	View
02.23.2007	PWB	Watts, Trustee, v. Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, (In re Hunt, Case No. 04-77191), Chapter 7 trustee seeks to avoid under § 547(b) two security deeds that were recorded weeks after they were executed and delivered. The debtor’s warranty deed was recorded after one security deed was recorded and at the same time as the other. The Court rules that, under Georgia law, the absence of record title in the debtor imposed a duty of inquiry that would have put a subsequent purchaser from the debtor on notice of the unrecorded security deeds. Therefore, the security deeds were perfected within the meaning of § 547(e)(1)(A) at the same time they were executed and delivered, and the transfers were effective as of that date under § 547(e)(2)(B). As such, the transfers were not on account of an antecedent debt as required by § 547(b)(3), and the trustee may not recover.	AP 06-6235 Doc# 29	View
02.23.2007	PWB	Ghee v. Retailers National Bank (In re Ghee), (Order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and denying Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and motion to intervene. The Debtor has failed to set forth a factual or legal basis for any alleged violation of the discharge injunction by any of the Defendants. Further, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over what is essentially a dispute between the Debtor’s spouse (who was not a debtor in the bankruptcy case) and the various non-debtor Defendants.)	AP 06-9105, Doc# 60	View
02.22.2007	MHM	In re Webb; Approving Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan providing for payment of student loans directly under §1322(b)(5), while paying other unsecured creditors 1%	BK 06-61821	View
02.22.2007	MHM	Simpukas v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Confirming that the parties’ contractual choice of California law to apply to the terms of repayment of a note secured by real estate located in Georgia	AP 05-6440	View
02.20.2007	MHM	Miller v. Delco; Order granting Plaintiff's motion to consolidate a fraudulent transfer proceeding with an objection to discharge.	AP 05-6300	View
02.16.2007	MGD	Pettigrew v. Hoey Construction, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Defendant’s security interest in property was avoided as a preference. In September of 2003, Defendant obtained a default judgment against Debtor in the State Court of Gwinnett County and requested that the Clerk of the State Court issue a Writ of Fieri Facias. The Clerk’s office did not timely process Defendant’s request and the Fi. Fa. was not recorded until December of 2003. Under Georgia law, the transfer of real property occurs when the transfer is perfected against bona fide purchasers. Defendant’s security interest, therefore, was perfected on December 5th when the Fi. Fa. was recorded, not when the default judgment was entered on September 19th. So while Defendant obtained its default judgment against Debtor outside the preference period, the perfection fo Defendant’s security interest occurred within the preference period and is thus avoidable.	AP 06-06252 (Doc# 25)	View
02.15.2007	JB	In re Burton; (Debtor’s former wife has supplemented her motion for contempt against Debtor’s former employer as required by previous Order. Because the Settlement Agreement and Release signed by the parties on December 23, 2004 bars Debtor’s former wife from raising any claim which arose before that date, Debtor’s former employer is directed to respond only to those claims alleged to have occurred after that date)	BK 03-92191 Doc#107	View
02.13.2007	PWB	Gordon v. Citibank (South Dakota, N.A.) (In re Anderson), Court will not disallow proof of claim based on chapter 7 trustee’s objection for lack of documentation in absence of showing of some basis to suspect that claim is not owed.	BK 03-93082 Doc# 42	View
02.12.2007	PWB	Bouchard v. Schiaffino, (In re Schiaffino, Case No. 06-71620). Complaint seeking exception of debt under § 523(a)(2) dismissed on motion of debtor because creditor filed it one day beyond 60 day limit of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c).	AP 06-9108 Doc# 7	View
02.08.2007	PWB	Hospitality Ventures/La Vista v. Heartwood 11, L.L.C., et al., (In re Hospitality Ventures/La Vista, Case No. 01-88200-PWB) Third party plaintiff’s claim for recovery based on a theory of unjust enrichment is fairly raised by the pleadings, and the record in the case demonstrates that it has been argued and determined with fair notice to the adverse party that it was before the Court. There is no basis for entry of summary judgment on the ground that the unjust enrichment theory had not been properly pleaded.	AP 03-6596 Doc#154	View
02.06.2007	MGD	Montz v. Chase Card Services, Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. Chapter 7 Trustee’s Motion for Default Judgment is denied because Trustee failed to serve the complaint in a proper manner and appears to have named as Defendant a non-existent corporation.	BK 06-04108 (Doc# 7)	View
01.31.2007	MGD	L. Lou Allen, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Jane J. Boggs (In re George T. Boggs), Order Granting Plaintiff Trustee’s Motion to Amend Complaint. Trustee filed a complaint against Debtor’s wife seeking to recover $175,000.00. Trustee moved to amend the complaint to add counts seeking to avoid any purported interest Defendant claims in the funds. The Court granted Trustee’s Motion to Amend on the basis that Defendant established no grounds upon which the Court could deny the Motion and the statute of limitations within which Trustee could bring avoidance actions had not run.	AP 06-04099 (Docket No. 28)	View
01.26.2007	PWB	Discover Financial Services v. Goodman, Presumption of nondischargeability under 523(a)(2)(C) does not apply to balance transfers on a credit card account. To the extent that the presumption applies, it does not establish nondischargeability, but shifts the burden of going forward to the debtor. The ultimate burden of proof remains with the debtor. Creditor's motion for summary judgment denied.	AP 06-6238 (Docket entry #13	View
01.26.2007	JEM	In re Wang; Debtor’s motion to reopen Chapter 7 case after receiving discharge in order to execute a reaffirmation agreement is denied as a reaffirmation agreement is not enforceable unless it was made prior to debtor’s discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1).	BK 05-94765 Doc#15	View
01.23.2007	JEM	Hays, as Trustee for Apyron Technologies, Inc. v. ChemReg International, LLC (In re Apyron Technologies, Inc.); Only issue at trial on plaintiff’s action to avoid preferential transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) was whether the $13,876.73 transfer which defendant received belonged to debtor or another entity. Defendant did not appear at trial. Plaintiff proffered evidence showing that the transfer was made from an account debtor operated under a trade name and not from a separate corporation, entitling plaintiff to avoid the transfer and recover the funds for the estate.	AP 06-6177 Doc#36	View
01.18.2007	MHM	Julian Lecraw & Co., LLC v. Gunter; Motion for reconsideration denied: Constitutional issue under Article I, Section 10, regarding gold and silver Coin as legal tender; Debtor is not entitled to jury trial.	BK 06-73835	View
01.12.2007	PWB	MBNA America Bank NA v. Russell (In re Russell), Order on Debtor’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (§ 523(a)(2)(A): To establish actual fraud in the use of a credit card, the Plaintiff must show a debtor’s actual subjective intent not to pay)	AP 06-4063 doc.#17	View
01.11.2007	JEM	Woolner v. LaFevor (In re LaFevor); On cross motions for summary judgment plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(6) is denied as plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing no material facts in dispute and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff’s claims under § 523(a)(2)(B) and (a)(6) and denied as to plaintiff’s claims under § 523(a)(2)(A). Defendant did not address the § 523(a)(2)(A).	AP 06-6167 Doc#28	View
01.10.2007	WHD	Automotive Finance Corporation v. Miles, Declaring debt nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6); debt arose from "out of trust" sales of vehicles.	AP 06-1006, doc# 28	View
01.09.2007	MGD	Smithkline Beecham Corp. d/b/a Glaxosmithkline v. Catherine Lam (In re Catherine Lam), Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendant moved to dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s complaint, which seeks to have the debt Defendant owes to Plaintiff deemed non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim for larceny or embezzlement. The complaint failed to state a claim for larceny, however, the Court could not conclude that the allegations could not, under any circumstances, make out a claim for embezzlement. The Court therefore granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to the dischargeability claim based on larceny and denied the Motion with respect to the dischargeability claim based on embezzlement.	AP 06-09096 (Docket No. 10)	View
01.08.2007	MGD	In re Olsen, Order Granting GRP Financial Services Inc.’s Motion to Annul Automatic Stay and Validate Foreclosure Sale. Debtor’s last mortgage payment was made in September of 2002, but two bankruptcy filings and extensive district court litigation prevented Movant from completing a foreclosure sale of Debtor’s property. After two years of litigation regarding the validity of the promissory note and deed to secure debt held by Movant, the District Court determined that Movant had the authority to foreclose on Debtor’s property. Debtor, pro se, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code the Friday before the scheduled foreclosure sale of her property. The Court modified the stay to allow Movant to cry the foreclosure sale. Debtor subsequently obtained counsel who represented her at the hearing on this matter and briefed the issue of whether Debtor filed her petition and plan in good faith. The Court concluded that cause existed to annul the stay because Debtor lacked good faith in filing her petition.	06-66198 (Docket No. 56)	View
01.07.2007	WHD	Avera, et al. v. Fitzgerald granting summary judgment to plaintiff on her claim that attorney's fees awarded by state court were intended to be additional child support and are therefore nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(5) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1710, docket number 19	View
01.05.2007	MGD	In re Lewis, Order Denying Petition for Payment of Unclaimed Funds. Movant, attorney-in-fact for JP Morgan Chase Bank, provided no evidence that the debt related to the unclaimed funds request was not satisfied through foreclosure or other payment or that JP Morgan Chase Bank still holds the claim and has not transferred or assigned the claim to another entity.	BK 03-41970 Doc# 34	View
01.05.2007	PWB	In re Angela Carter, Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Reopen, Motion to Vacate Foreclosure Sale and Remanding Case to State Court, (Order denying debtor’s motions in closed case and remanding the debtor’s attempted removal of a state court dispossessory proceeding (which had been removed multiple times to District Court) to DeKalb County State Court and noting that such remand is not reviewable by appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b))	BK 05-95808, doc.#24	View
01.05.2007	PWB	In re Rios; The Debtor’s chapter 13 plan, as amended, met all the requirements for confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1325, but the Trustee objected to its confirmation, and requested dismissal of the case, because Debtor was not eligible because he did not receive the credit briefing required by 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) until three days after the filing of his petition. § 109(h) is not jurisdictional and may be waived. Because the Trustee did not timely pursue dismissal of the case due to the Debtor’s ineligibility, the Court declined to dismiss the case and confirmed the plan.	BK 07-66047 Doc.30	View
01.04.2007	PWB	Hospitality Ventures/LaVista v. Heartwood 11, L.L.C., et al., v. DeKalb County, et al. The Opinion considers whether the District Court, under principles of supplemental jurisdiction codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, has subject matter jurisdiction of, and if so, whether a bankruptcy judge may hear, a third-party claim for which no independent basis of jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). The Opinion notes that courts generally agree that a district court has supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 with regard to its bankruptcy jurisdiction under § 1334 but that they disagree over whether a bankruptcy judge may or may not hear a matter within a district court’s supplemental bankruptcy jurisdiction under§ 157(a). The Opinion concludes that the better view is that the system for the allocation of bankruptcy jurisdiction between a district court and its bankruptcy unit, comprised of the bankruptcy judges, authorizes the referral to a bankruptcy judge of a third-party claim within a district court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction, as supplemented by § 1367, that is asserted in response to a claim arising under the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, although the third-party claim had no independent jurisdictional basis, the Opinion determines that the District Court had supplemental jurisdiction of it and that it was properly referable to a bankruptcy judge under § 157(a) and LR 83.7, NDGa, to hear as a non-core matter, subject to de novo review by the District Court, under § 157(c).	AP 03-6596 Doc#145	View
01.04.2007	PWB	Hospitality Ventures/LaVista v. Heartwood 11, L.L.C., et al., v. DeKalb County, et al. Heartwood purchased lien for ad valorem taxes due on the Debtor’s hotel property from DeKalb County under former O.C.G.A. § 48-3-19(a)(1). Debtor filed adversary proceeding against Heartwood under former 11 U.S.C. § 505 to reduce the amount of the tax lien, alleging that the hotel was worth less than the assessed value and that the tax should be reduced. Heartwood filed a third-party complaint against DeKalb County. Heartwood and the Debtor settled, stipulating to the value of the hotel. Based on the stipulation and the absence of other evidence, the Court in its January 10, 2006 Order directed the entry of judgment in favor of Heartwood for the difference in what it paid for the tax lien and its allowed amount based on the stipulated value. On remand from the District Court on DeKalb County’s appeal, the Court vacated the January 10 Order because it had improperly made final determinations in a non-core matter, contrary to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). The Court then issued its opinion that Heartwood is entitled to partial summary judgment on the legal defenses raised by DeKalb County and scheduled a trial on the remaining issue of the value of the hotel. Following the trial, the Court will issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues.	AP 03-6596 Doc#146	View
01.03.2007	CRM	Discover Bank, Issuer of the Discover Card, v. Gregory L. Howard (In re Gregory L. Howard); 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2)(A); credit card issuer's default judgment denied because issuer's complaint failed to sufficiently allege facts that established false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud. Nondischargeability based on false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud requires a showing of actual, subjective fraudulent intent which is not established solely by the fact than an insolvent debtor used a credit card and made implied representations concerning the ability to pay or ultimately did not have the ability to pay the debt.	AP 05-6033 Doc#14	View
01.03.2007	CRM	Carolyn Dockery v. Pamela Tashay Patterson (In re Pamela Tashay Patterson); 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(6) and 11 U.S.C. section 727(a)(4); Five days after Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was entered, the Debtor filed an answer. The answer was construed as a motion to vacate default judgment. Therefore, even though Debtor did not respond to the motion for default judgment, plaintiff's default judgment was denied and a clerk's entry of default was vacated because Debtor showed a sufficient and expeditious interest in correcting the default.	AP 05-06381 Doc# 17)	View
01.03.2007	PWB	Thurmond, et al. v. Turner, et al. The Order directs entry of final judgments in adversary proceedings brought by the Trustee to avoid prepetition transfers by the debtor under former O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22 and by judgment creditors seeking a determination that their judgment lien had priority over a postpetition security deed executed by the Debtor with regard to his interest in one of the properties that he had reacquired after the filing of the bankruptcy petition. One transfer was set aside as a voluntary conveyance under § 18-2-22(3). The other was not avoidable because the Court determined the Debtor was not insolvent at the time of the transfer. In this regard, the Court determined that the evidence had not established that the Debtor was actually liable to the judgment creditors, who had obtained their judgment by default. The default judgment was not binding on the transferee because she was not a party to the lawsuit. The Court determined that the judgment lien did not attach to the property prepetition because the Debtor had not owned it and that it did not attach to the interest he acquired postpetition by operation of 11 U.S.C.§ 524.	AP 02-6433 Doc# 87	View
12.29.2006	PWB	In re Dean, Court has jurisdiction to rule on Debtor’s motion for reconsideration notwithstanding filing of notice of appeal	BK 06-71654 doc.#52	View
12.26.2006	MHM	Blue Ridge Investers, II, LP v. Wachovia Bank, NA (In re Aerosol Packaging, LLC) The terms of a prepetition subordination agreement between debtor's two primary secured creditors, Wachovia and Blue Ridge, provided inter alia that Blue Ridge authorized Wachovia, as the senior secured party, to take certain actions in Wachovia’s own name and in the name of Blue Ridge, including the right to vote both claims in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Wachovia's right to vote Blue Ridge's claim was upheld.	BK 06-67096	View
12.26.2006	WHD	In re Arnell, Finding bank in violation of section 362(a)(6) for freezing debtor's bank account without a valid right of setoff.	BK 05-12444 Doc#78	View
12.22.2006	JEM	In re Leaks Debtor proposed plan seeking to surrender a car in full satisfaction of debt and thereby deprive secured creditor of an unsecured claim. Plan was based on the hanging paragraph at the end of section 1325(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. Held: Confirmation denied as not being in compliance with section 1325(a)(5)(B). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-69445 Doc#37	View
12.22.2006	WHD	In re Freeman, Overruling trustee's objection to confirmation of debtor's chapter 13 plan and permitting debtor to make direct payments of long-term student loan debt in accordance with contract term.	BK 06-10651 Doc#22	View
12.20.2006	JB	Hays v. Hamblen Family Irrevocable Trust et. al. (In re Hamblen); O.C.G.A. 53-12-1 et. seq.; Defendant Gibson’s assertion that he, as a non-attorney trustee, can represent the defendant trusts in this litigation is denied. Defendant recognizes that business trusts must be represented by an attorney licensed to practice in this Court, but argues that these defendant trusts are land trusts organized as such under Article 3 of the Georgia Trust Act and can be represented by a non-attorney trustee. Defendant’s reliance on the Georgia Trust Act is misplaced. Trusts created under Article 3 are like business trusts and require a licensed attorney to appear in court. His other legal arguments are also without merit. Defendant Gibson, as a non-lawyer, is permitted to represent himself individually, but may not represent any other entity in court.	AP 06-6394 (Doc#29)	View
12.18.2006	PWB	In re Dean; Debtor filed chapter 13 petition after his bank placed a hold on his bank account due to suspicion that funds wired into the account did not belong to the debtor. The Debtor filed motions seeking turnover of the property and damages, including damages for violation of the stay. The Court denied the motions because they were improperly served, because an adversary proceeding is required to recover property of the estate, and because the question of whether the stay had been violated determined on whether the bank had acted properly, an issue that the Court would abstain from deciding. The Court granted the motion of the banks for relief from stay to permit determination of issues relating to the account. The Court denied confirmation of the plan because it did not meet confirmation requirements. Finally, because the debtor’s purpose in filing was to obtain a forum for seeking turn-over of the bank account and the assertion of claims against the banks, rather than debt relief, the Court dismissed the case	BK 06-71654 (Doc #40)	View
12.14.2006	JB	Hays v. Hamblen Family Irrevocable Trust et. al. (In re Hamblen); Fed R. Civ. P. 8(a) and 12(e); Defendant Gibson’s pro se motion for more definite statement is denied. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s amended complaint contained only conclusory allegations and failed to provide facts enabling him to frame a responsive pleading. Plaintiff’s ten count complaint lays out the claims made and relief sought and is not so ambiguous or unintelligible that Defendant cannot frame a response. To the extent Defendant lacks information regarding the allegations in the complaint, he will have the opportunity to acquire such information through the discovery process.	AP 06-6394 (Doc#28)	View
12.14.2006	PWB	In re Pamela Barton; “Hanging paragraph” following § 1325(a)(9) that makes § 506 inapplicable to treatment of secured claims under § 1325(a)(5) does not permit plan to provide for surrender of 910 car in full satisfaction of claim.	BK 06-41283 doc. no. 35	View
12.14.2006	PWB	In re Davis; “Hanging paragraph” following § 1325(a)(9) that makes § 506 inapplicable to treatment of secured claims under § 1325(a)(5) does not permit plan to provide for surrender of 910 car in full satisfaction of claim.	BK 06-40692 doc. no. 33	View
12.13.2006	JEM	In re Patterson. Patterson v. Ga. Dept. of Rev. Defendant supported motion for summary judgment on debtor’s complaint to determine dischargeability of tax debt with affidavit stating that IRS revised debtor’s tax liability upward. This fact, Defendant asserted, meant that Debtor was required to file an amended state return, thereby rendering tax debt nondichargeable under section 523(a)(1)(B). Held: Motion denied. O.C.G.A. § 48-7-82(e)(1) requires amended return when taxpayer’s “net income,” not tax liability, is changed by the IRS. There was nothing in the record to show Debtor’s net income had changed. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 06-9058 Doc#8	View
12.13.2006	WHD	Powell v. Shealey, Holding non-support, marital debt dischargeable under section 523(a)(15)	AP 05-1021 Doc#24	View
12.13.2006	MGD	In re SLOCUM, , and In re SILVERS, Order Directing Debtors to File a Post-confirmation Amendment, Dismiss the Chapter 13 Case, or Take Other Appropriate Action: The Court adopts the reasoning set forth in In re Zehrung,351 B.R. 675 (W.D. Wisc. 2006), and determines that the Court will not confirm a debtor’s plan over the objection of a secured creditor where a debtor proposes to surrender collateral in full satisfaction of a claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(5)(C) and the parties agree that the collateral is worth less than the amount of the debt it secures. (Order on appeal)	BK 6-41162, 06-41198	View
12.05.2006	WHD	In re Eger, Denying motion to reopen for purpose of filing a reaffirmation agreement, as reaffirmation agreement would not have been effective because it was executed after the entry of the debtor's discharge.	BK 05-12074 Doc#13	View
12.04.2006	JEM	In re Apyron Technologies, Inc. Trustee’s motion for reconsideration of order denying Trustee’s motion to disqualify former officer’s attorney in litigation over administrative claim was denied because Trustee showed no fact or law overlooked by the Court. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 02-74350 Doc#517	View
12.01.2006	PWB	Colorado West Transportation Co., Inc., vs. Arthur H. McMahon, Jr., Default judgment on creditor’s fraud claim does not have issue preclusive (collateral estoppel) effect in later dischargeability under Colorado law. Even if it does, bankruptcy court is not required to give issue preclusive effect to a state court default judgment under the full faith and credit clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, in dischargeability matters that must be brought in bankruptcy court under § 523(c)	AP 05-6027 doc. no. 37	View
11.29.2006	JB	Lumpkin County Bank v. Collins (In re Collins), Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(c), 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a) (6); Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s pro se answer is granted. Defendant failed to serve responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests even after Plaintiff’s motion to compel was granted. Plaintiff was entitled to a default judgment declaring that Plaintiff’s Superior Court judgment is non-dischargeable.	AP 05-6468 (Doc#32)	View
11.28.2006	JB	In re Kelly; ( 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(h), 521(a)(1), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1006, 1007, 1017); Debtor’s motion to reopen his case is denied as debtor failed to timely pay his filing fee installment, failed to file explanation of exigent circumstances and submit certification of completion of budget and credit counseling briefing, and failed to file required schedules and statement of financial affairs within 45 days after date of filing petition.	BK 06-71019 (Docket #23)	View
11.28.2006	JB	In re Burton; Pursuant to earlier Order of Court requiring debtor’s ex-wife to obtain pre-approval before seeking affirmative relief against debtor’s employer, she must supplement current motion to hold employer in contempt by providing certain specific information and affidavits.	BK 03-92191 (Docket #95)	View
11.28.2006	WHD	BancorpSouth Bank v. Callaway, Finding portion of debt nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A) and remainder of debt dischargeable. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-1113, doc#58	View
11.28.2006	JEM	In re Apyron Technologies, Inc. Former officer and shareholder of Chapter 11 debtor moved for allowance of administrative claim for unpaid wages. Trustee moved to disqualify law firm representing former officer because that firm had also represented the Chapter 11 debtor on discrete matters. Held: Motion to disqualify denied. Trustee failed to show at evidentiary hearing that law firm’s former representation of the Debtor was substantially related to dispute over administrative claim within meaning of Rule 1.9(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.	BK 02-74350 Doc#514	View
11.20.2006	WHD	In re Combs, Granting motion for sanctions for violation of automatic stay.	BK 06-10872 Doc#33	View
11.14.2006	JB	Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Pittard (In re Pittard); (11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a), 523(a)(2), (c); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(a), 4007(c); O.C.G.A. §44-12-24); Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff was assignee of a state court consent judgment, entitling original plaintiff, among other things, to assert a right of action for fraudulent inducement to extend credit if defendant ever filed personal bankruptcy. Georgia law does not permit assignee to bring action arising from injuries to another based on fraud and no other evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation was produced. With regard to the objection to discharge, plaintiff’s complaint was time barred and facts do not support an exception to discharge.	AP 05-6394 (Docket #38)	View
11.09.2006	MGD	In re Liebl, Order Denying Debtor’s Application for Waiver of the Filing Fee. The Judicial Conference Procedures Regarding Fee Waivers in Chapter 7 cases do not define whether the income which is to be compared to the poverty level is before tax income or after tax income. Given the purpose of the fee waiver, after-tax income seems the most appropriate standard since only after-tax income is available to the Debtor to pay the filing fee. According to the figures calculated using Debtors’ Pay Advices, Debtors’ annual after-tax income is at least $5,000 higher than 150% of the official poverty line for a family of 3, thereby making Debtors ineligible for a waiver of the filing fee.	BK 06-73560	View
11.09.2006	JEM	In re Marshall Secured creditor filed proof of claim and later employed an attorney who filed a motion for relief from stay. Subsequently, debtor objected to proof of claim and served the creditor but not the creditor's attorney. The Court denied the objection in part because service on the creditor's attorney was required by the Court's local rules.	BK 06-69516 Doc#34	View
10.31.2006	JEM	In re Jenkins. EDS Acquisition v. Jenkins Parties sought court approval of compromise in suit to determine dischargeability of debt. Held: Motion denied because the Bankruptcy Code does not provide for approval of such compromises. Moreover, a motion to approve a compromise, when appropriate, should be filed in the main case, not the adversary. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 06-6054 Doc#15	View
10.30.2006	JEM	In re Spejcher. Hays, Trustee v. Wellborn Forrest Products, Inc., et. al. Trustee moved for a default judgment on a complaint to avoid liens either as a violation of section 362 or as a preference under section 547. According to the complaint, one of the defendants held a mechanics lien recorded during the preference period. Held: Motion denied as to Defendant holding mechanics lien. Section 547(c)(6) bars avoidance of a statutory lien not avoidable under section 545, and complaint alleged no facts to show that lien was avoidable under section 545. Mention of statutory lien in complaint eliminated need for defaulted Defendant to prove affirmative defense under section 547(g). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 06-6347 Doc#25	View
10.30.2006	JEM	In re Ngo This case illustrates two points: (1) once a motion is denied, it cannot be amended to cure whatever led to its denial, and (2) a second motion for reconsideration is almost always improper and violates BLR 9023-1. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-90427 Doc#26	View
10.26.2006	JB	Miller, Trustee v. Brown (In re Brown); Trustee’s motion for settlement and compromise is granted. Objecting creditor filed bankruptcy, and her claim belongs to her bankruptcy estate. The Chapter 7 Trustee of the objecting creditor's estate agrees with terms of settlement and compromise, U.S. Trustee does not oppose it, and settlement and compromise meet Justice Oaks II, Ltd factors.	AP 04-6575 (Docket #98)	View
10.25.2006	JB	In re Parker; (11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 726, 541(a)(1)); Debtor’s objection to employment of real estate agent overruled. Court is without authority to permit debtor to keep unencumbered home valued at $125,000 as Bankruptcy Code requires Chapter 7 Trustee to liquidate debtor’s property and pay creditors.	BM 06-65216 (Docket #29)	View
10.20.2006	JEM	In re Patterson. Patterson v. Ga. Dept. of Rev. The complaint filed by debtor seeking to determine that tax debt was dischargeable referred to the debt as “payroll taxes.” Defendant Revenue Department moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that a debt for payroll taxes falls squarely within the exception to discharge under § 523(a)(1)(A). Held: Motion denied. “Payroll taxes” is imprecise and could refer to taxes owed by Plaintiff for wages, as opposed to withholding taxes not paid over to Defendant. NOT FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-9058 Doc#5	View
10.18.2006	JB	Morris v. Cunningham (In re Cunningham) Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Defendant did not dispute Plaintiff’s statement of undisputed material facts, but argued that Plaintiff’s judgment was “void” because venue had “vanished” in Fulton County. Plaintiff’s Fulton County Superior Court judgment, which was based on Defendant’s fraudulent conduct, meets the test for collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, under Georgia law, and Plaintiff’s judgment is determined to be non-dischargeable. Defendant had waived any argument concerning venue as he had not raised it at the earliest opportunity or appealed the superior court judgment	AP 06-6086 Doc#17	View
10.17.2006	WHD	Brown v. MAWAL, Inc. Resolving issue as to escrowed settlement funds. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-1043 Doc#76	View
10.13.2006	JEM	In re Newton Postconfirmation modification of Chapter 13 plan proposing to surrender vehicle in satisfaction of debt may not be approved under section 1329 of the Bankruptcy Code.	BK 05-73817 Doc#33	View
10.12.2006	WHD	Mutual Savings Credit Union v. Mathis, Deferring ruling on motion for sanction under Rule 9011 until such time as the Court resolve the substance of the parties' dispute. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 06-1005 Doc#47	View
10.12.2006	WHD	In re Williford Denying motion to avoid lien held by the Internal Revenue Service for failure to state a claim and lack of proper service. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-11428 Doc#19	View
10.12.2006	WHD	In re Harman, Granting in part and denying in part application for compensation filed by real estate professional. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-17195 Doc#220	View
10.12.2006	WHD	In re Robinson, Denying motion to avoid lien on the basis that no liens existed; liens were created in violation of the automatic stay and were void. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 02-17467 Doc#29	View
10.11.2006	MHM	WOW! Factor Desserts, Inc. V. Anderson (In re Johnson & In re Innocentia, Inc.) Automatic stay will not be modified to allow prosecution of claims pending in litigation in Canada.	BK 04-74452, 04-74454	View
10.11.2006	CRM	In re Allied Holdings, Inc Denying motion to annul automatic stay and finding imposition of sanctions appropriate for willful, post-petition violation of the stay.	BK 05-12515 Doc#2147	View
10.11.2006	WHD	Looney v. Owens, Denying motion to quash subpoena filed on behalf of a corporation by other than a licensed attorney. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-1706 Doc#83	View
10.11.2006	WHD	Looney v. Owens, Denying motion to amend complaint. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-1706 Doc#84	View
10.11.2006	WHD	In Tara Sheet Metal, Inc. Denying motion for order confirming termination of stay under section 362(j); debtor is a corporation, and the automatic stay termination provisions of section 521(a)(6) and 362(h)(1) apply only to individual debtors. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-11261 Doc#37	View
10.06.2006	PWB	Kaye v. World International Trading, Inc. (In re Value Music Concepts, Inc.) Defendant's motion to vacate default judgment denied. The plaintiff's service of the summons and complaint complied with requirements of Rule 7004 and constitutional requirements of due process. In addition, the defendant failed to set forth a basis for relief under Rule 60(b). The time for raising "excusable neglect" as a ground had expired and the defendant failed to meet the higher burden of "extraordinary circumstances" required by Rule 60(b)(6).	AP 04-6042 Doc# 22	View
10.04.2006	JEM	In re Michal. McComb v. Michal; Adversary dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) , made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004, for failure to serve summons and complaint within 120 days of filing of adversary.	AP 06-9036	View
09.29.2006	PWB	Hutchins v. Temples Agreement made as part of settlement of state court litigation including language that “the judgment including claims for fraud which may not be dischargeable in a bankruptcy proceeding” does not provide sufficiently detailed findings of fact that would entitle consent judgment to issue preclusive effect under Florida law. Summary judgment to plaintiff in § 523(a)(2) dischargeability action is denied.	AP 05-9134 Doc#15	View
09.29.2006	MHM	Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. May Dischargeability: Copyright infringement does not constitute willful and malicious injury.	AP 04-9177	View
09.29.2006	MHM	Ampel v. Ampel Automatic Stay: Amounts withheld postpetition from alimony payable to Debtor to reimburse former spouse for mortgage payments on the marital residence is not recoupment, violated the automatic stay, and must be repaid to D; withholding amounts from alimony to reimburse for fees payable to a guardian ad litem incurred in connection with a child custody proceeding does, however, constitute recoupment.	BK 05-94878	View
09.29.2006	JEM	In re Parker Portion of Debtor’s emergency motion to reimpose stay seeking expedited hearing denied where motion was served by mail and failed to allege any facts to show the existence of an emergency.	BK 06-68928 Doc#31	View
09.28.2006	MHM	Aero Housewares, LLC v. Interstate Restoration Group, Inc. Claim: implied trust in insurance proceeds; Valuation: value of lease assignment in sale of assets.	BK 05-60451	View
09.27.2006	MHM	Ampel v. Ampel; (dischargeability of guardian ad litem's fees)	AP 05-6462	View
09.27.2006	PWB	Downey v. State of Georgia Department of Revenue, Claim for non-priority taxes subject to a lien is allowed as secured to the extent of the value of the debtors’ property. The tax lien is a statutory lien that is not avoidable under § 522(f)(1). Under O.C.G.A. § 48-2-56(a), a tax lien covers all property in which the taxpayer has an interest. A debtor cannot exempt assets that are subject to a tax lien, notice of which is properly filed, under § 522(c)(2)(B). In the absence of a showing that the tax lien was not properly filed, the claim is allowable as a secured claim.	BK 05-44526, doc no. 27	View
09.26.2006	REB	JPI Partners, L.L.C. v. Korie Dion Dixon (In re Korie Dion Dixon) 11 USC Sections 523(a)(2) and 523(a)(4), collateral estoppel.	AP 06-6124	View
09.26.2006	JB	In re JAC Family Foundation 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(e); 101(41), (15). Chapter 13 Trustee filed motion to dismiss on grounds of ineligibility. Only an individual with regular income may be a debtor in a Chapter 13 case. Plain meaning of “foundation” as organization or institution is inconsistent with plain meaning of “individual” as single human being or natural person. Other sections of Bankruptcy Code and of creation of Chapter 13 relief support interpretation that foundation is ineligible to be Chapter 13 debtor. Trustee’s motion granted and case dismissed.	BK 06-69360 Doc#20	View
09.26.2006	WHD	In re Dan River, Inc. Denying motion to compel payment of administrative expense or, in the alternative, for stay pending appeal or for posting of supersedeas bond.	BK 04-10990 Doc#1709	View
09.25.2006	MGD	In re DANIEL DAVID DELPIANO Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Reimposition of the Stay. (1) Debtor is not entitled to relief simply because he did not personally receive notice of the progress and changes in his case. Under BLR 9007-3(b), each party has the burden of filing a change of address with the Court and a party shall not be entitled to notice at the new address in the absence of complete compliance with the Rule. (2) The automatic stay terminated when Debtor waived his discharge and conceded that he was prepared to defend himself in any state court action against his creditors’ claims. Debtor cannot at the same time agree to waive his discharge to allow creditors to pursue collection of their claims and expect to reap the benefits of the protection of the automatic stay.	BK 03-82293	View
09.25.2006	MGD	In re CYNTHIA NEVELS Order Denying Debtor’s Application for Waiver of the Filing Fee. The Judicial Conference Procedures Regarding Fee Waivers in Chapter 7 cases do not define whether the income which is to be compared to the poverty level is before tax income or after tax income. Given the purpose of the fee waiver, after-tax income seems the most appropriate standard since only after-tax income is available to the Debtor to pay the filing fee. According to the figures calculated using Debtor’s Pay Advices, Debtor’s annual after-tax income is almost $3000.00 higher than 150% of the official poverty line for a family of 2, thereby making Debtor ineligible for a waiver of the filing fee.	BK 06-71129	View
09.22.2006	PWB	Lubin v. Guyton (In re CHC Venture Properties, LLC) (Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because there was a dispute of fact as to whether trustee materially breached real estate sale agreement by failing to provide notice of bankruptcy approval and, if there was a breach, whether the defendant waived breach by requesting an extension of closing).	AP 04-6469, Doc. No. 34	View
09.21.2006	PWB	Thurmond v. Turner, In trustee’s action under former O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22 to set aside two fraudulent conveyances, the court determined after trial that the conveyances were made without consideration, but not with actual intent to defraud. However, with regard to the first conveyance to the debtor’s wife, the entry of a default judgment against the debtor on a disputed claim after the conveyance does not preclude the debtor’s wife from challenging the claim and the default judgment does not establish the debtor’s liability on the claim for purposes of the fraudulent conveyance action against her. Absent proof beyond the default judgment of the debtor’s liability on the claim, the trustee has not established that the debtor was insolvent at the time of the conveyance. The court reopened the evidence to permit the parties to introduce additional evidence on the question of the debtor’s insolvency at the time of the conveyance.	AP 02-6433, doc no. 58	View
09.20.2006	MGD	In re LAURA BUCHANAN PRICE; Order Sustaining Trustee’s Objection to Debtor’s Exemptions and Granting Trustee’s Motion for Turnover by Debtor of Property of the Estate. (1) To allow Debtor to amend her claim of exemption after the Trustee has filed an objection and after the property, which she now claims is not exempt, has been destroyed would clearly be inequitable and would hinder the diligent administration of the bankruptcy estate by the Trustee. (2) When the debtor no longer has possession of the property or its value, the appropriate remedy available to the trustee is a money judgment, which can be obtained only through an adversary proceeding.	BK 06-62721	View
09.18.2006	JB	In re Hamblen 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(3), (4); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4002. Trustee filed motion to hold Debtors in contempt for failure to fully comply with specific discovery provisions in Court’s August 17, 2006 Order and, if Debtors could not locate required documents or information both Debtors were to execute and file affidavit with explanation. Upon Trustee’s evidentiary showing of Debtors’ failure to comply by clear and convincing evidence, Debtors should be prepared to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt. Court has power to find Debtors in civil contempt and order sanctions, including incarceration and payment of fines and fees.	BK 05-95215 Doc#283	View
09.15.2006	JEM	In re Premji (Ga. Lottery Corp. v. Premji) Failure to account for proceeds of sales of lottery tickers is a defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity and debt related thereto is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-6588	View
09.15.2006	WHD	United States Trustee v. Powell Granting summary judgment and denying debtor's discharge pursuant to section 727(a)(8).	AP 1076 Doc#7	View
09.15.2006	WHD	United States Trustee v. Hays Granting summary judgment and denying debtor's discharge pursuant to section 727(a)(8).	AP 06-1077 Doc#7	View
09.15.2006	WHD	United States Trustee v. Wamsley Granting summary judgment and denying debtor's discharge pursuant to section 727(a)(8).	AP 06-1008 Doc#9	View
09.15.2006	WHD	United States Trustee v. Dent, Granting summary judgment and denying debtor's discharge pursuant to section 727(a)(8).	AP 06-1032 Doc#8	View
09.13.2006	MGD	In re GEORGE ALLEN PARKER; Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Dismiss. Chapter 7 debtor attempted to use the eligibility and automatic dismissal provisions of BAPCPA to abuse the bankruptcy system by moving to dismiss his case on the grounds that he is ineligible to be a debtor under Section 109(h) due to his failure to receive credit counseling from an approved agency. Debtor waived the protections of that statute by filing a Motion to Extend Time for Credit Counseling and by actively participating in his Chapter 7 case after becoming aware of the Section 109(h) issue. Debtor is therefore judicially estopped from arguing his ineligibility at this stage of the proceedings. Similarly, dismissal because of the absence of payment advices where there is no evidence that payment advises exist would be contra to BAPCPA.	BK 06-61224	View
09.13.2006	JB	In re Hamblen Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4002(5). Debtors are ordered to comply with bankruptcy law and this Order to provide a new address to Trustee and to file same with Clerk’s office.	BK 05-95215 Doc#274	View
09.09.2006	WHD	In re Huckeba; denying motion to dismiss case pursuant to section 109(g)(1)	BK 05-17339	View
09.08.2006	MHM	In re Om; (Consideration of good faith requirement for Chapter 13 confirmation)	BK 03-72513	View
09.07.2006	MHM	Ward v. Claims Accounting; (Dismissal of pro se Debtors' 19 adversary proceeding filed to enforce the automatic stay )	AP 06-9070	View
09.05.2006	MHM	Thompson v. SFC of GA, LP (Order vacating dismissal for want of prosecution)	AP 05-6516	View
09.05.2006	JEM	In re Jordan Fee application in Chapter 11 case was denied in part primarily because the work was not necessary. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-78994	View
09.05.2006	PWB	In re Blackwell, (includes doc no. 44 (OrDer entered July 6, 2006))(A lawyer retained by the Chapter 13 debtor to represent her in an action for the wrongful death of their son settled the action for policy limits, deducted his one-third contingent fee, and disbursed the balance to the debtors, who spent over half of the proceeds. The Debtor’s bankruptcy counsel then filed an application for approval of the employment of special counsel, approval of the settlement, payment of special counsel’s fee, and disbursement of the net proceeds to the chapter 13 trustee. These applications did not disclose the prior disbursement of the funds. After the court approved the applications in the absence of objection, the chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to vacate the orders and to dismiss the case when she discovered that the funds were not available. The court vacated its prior orders and ordered bankruptcy counsel and special counsel to show cause why their fees should not be disallowed or disgorged and why sanctions should not be imposed.)	BK 04-41655, doc no. 47	View
09.05.2006	JB	In re Hamblen 11 U.S.C. §§ 522(d); 541(c)(2); O.C.G.A. § 44-13-100. Chapter 7 Trustee filed objection to Debtors’ claims of exemptions and motion to surcharge the exemptions. Surcharge against a debtor’s exemption appropriate where debtor has underreported assets or has engaged in exceptional misconduct in order to protect integrity of bankruptcy process and creditors of the estate. Debtors’ motion to surcharge homestead and vehicle exemption granted. Debtors allowed their exemptions in household goods, furnishings and jewelry, but personal property valued in excess of those amounts must be turned over to the Trustee. Trustee’s surcharge request with regard to the IRA accounts is denied unless the Trustee demonstrates such accounts are not excluded from property of the estate.	BK 05-95215 Doc# 268	View
09.01.2006	JEM	In re Resendez Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1408,Trustee moved to dismiss for improper venue where Debtor filed the case in the Atlanta Division when it should have been filed in the Newnan Division. Motion denied. The venue under § 1408 was proper in this District. The Court has the authority to permit a case filed in the wrong Division to be administered there. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-67436	View
08.31.2006	MGD	In re BONNIE S. HOLLIDAY; Order granting Trustee’s motion for court determination that pre-petition judgments held by Debtor were an asset of the bankruptcy estate. Judgements arising from a pre-petition cause of action held by Debtor, that was disclosed in Debtor’s Statement of Financial Affairs, but was not included on Debtor’s Schedules, were not abandoned to Debtor by operation of law at the close of Debtor’s case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554. Only property “scheduled” under § 521(1) is abandoned to the debtor, if not otherwise administered, at the close of the case.	BK 03-90612	View
08.23.2006	MHM	Wells Fargo v. Alexander (D's motion for stay pending appeal is denied)	BK 06-67957	View
08.23.2006	MHM	Bramlett Plumbing Inc. v. Nugent (Default opened because of Defendant's attorney's abandonment)	AP 05-6492	View
08.18.2006	WHD	In re Owens, denying creditor's motion to dismiss Chapter 7 case for bad faith pursuant to section 707(a)	BK 04-17420	View
08.17.2006	JB	In re Hamblen; Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to compel Debtors to deliver property and cooperate with the Trustee and to vacate their residence granted with specific instructions	BK 05-95215	View
08.17.2006	WHD	In re Mims, granting in part debtor's objection to claim	BK 05-12118	View
08.15.2006	MHM	In re Turner (Ch13T's motion regarding disbursement of excess foreclosure proceeds)	BK 02-90898	View
08.11.2006	JEM	In re Tran (Wells Fargo Financial Georgia, Inc. v. Tran) Motion for default judgment granted in part. Facts alleged in the complaint satisfied the elements of a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(c). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 06-6078	View
08.11.2006	JEM	In re Walden Creditor sought stay relief for violation of consent order, which was presented and entered just a few days before the creditor claimed a default that preceded the entry of the consent order. The Court vacated the consent order, stating that “To present a consent order that purports to settle a dispute but is in fact a time bomb that will go shortly after it is entered based on acts or omissions that occurred prior to its entry is to undermine confidence in the use of consent orders to settle disputes.” NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-72465	View
08.08.2006	WHD	Collins Brothers Corporation v. Perrine, denying motion for summary judgment on whether debt arose under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act and whether the debt is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4)	AP 05-1118	View
08.08.2006	WHD	First National Bank of Griffin v. Frizzell, granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff as to nondischargeability of a debt under section 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6)	AP 06-1019	View
08.03.2006	WHD	In re Combs, denying motion for modification of pre-confirmation adequate protection payments for lack of evidence regarding rate of depreciation of vehicle	BK 06-10872	View
08.03.2006	MGD	In re DNA RACING & CUSTOMS, INC.; Order denying Movants’ motion to modify order lifting stay and denying Debtor’s motion for contempt. Debtor was not entitled to a finding of contempt or damages where any stay violation by Movants was not wilful and any damages were speculative and not casually related to Movants’ actions.	BK 05-45053	View
07.31.2006	MHM	Ragsdale Ragsdale v. Michas (In re Five Star Design & Builders, LLC) Ch7T's motion to transfer case of affiliate filed in another district granted	04-67820	View
07.28.2006	MHM	Unifund Financial Corp. v. Hughes; Ch. 7 Debtor's pro se objections to claims and motions to overturn state court criminal contempt orders denied	BK 04-98206	View
07.28.2006	MHM	Overton v. Boral Bricks, Inc.; (§522 motion to avoid Mechanic's lien denied)	BK 06-64325	View
07.25.2006	JB	In re Brown; (11 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a), (a)(5)(B)(ii),(a)(9); 1326(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C), (a)(2), (a)(3); 361). Under BAPCPA, secured car creditor objected to confirmation of Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan because Debtor’s adequate protection payments were not being paid directly to creditor but were paid to Chapter 13 Trustee and because they were not being applied to both principal and interest, but were being applied to reduce principal only. Objections overruled. With regard to the adequate protection payments made to the Chapter 13 Trustee, the statutory scheme allows Chapter 13 Trustee to administer such adequate protection payments; the administrative lien on the adequate protection payments protects the creditor if the case is dismissed prior to confirmation; and practical considerations, including accounting difficulties and record keeping, favor administration by the Chapter 13 Trustee. With regard to adequate protection payments being applied to principal and interest, creditor’s analysis is unconvincing. Application of the payment to an interest component would effect a significant change in bankruptcy law unsupported by legislative history and contradicts fundamental bankruptcy principles.	BK 05-86731	View
07.21.2006	MHM	Ragsdale v. Michas (In re Five Star Design & Builders, LLC) denial of motion to recuse	BK 04-67820	View
07.17.2006	JEM	Know Thy Self, Inc. Case filed pro se by ineligible individual on behalf of fictitious “trade name” was dismissed. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-62628	View
07.13.2006	MHM	WOW! Factor Desserts, Inc. v. Anderson (In re Johnson and In re Innocentia, Inc.) Relief from stay to proceed with litigation in Canada denied	BK 04-74454, BK 04-74452	View
07.13.2006	PWB	In re Dover, An application for unclaimed funds paid into the court’s registry by a trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 347(a) must show that the creditor has a present entitlement to the funds. An applicant seeking unclaimed funds due to distributions made on account of a secured claim must show that the debt has not been satisfied through payment or foreclosure and that an amount is currently due and payable to which the unclaimed funds may lawfully be applied. Because the applicant has not done so, the application is denied without prejudice. Any future application must be served on the debtors, their counsel, and the trustee.	BK 02-41840, doc no. 33	View
07.11.2006	MGD	Roche v. Pep Boys, Inc.; Order denying defendants’ motion for approval of signature bond and granting motion for stay contingent upon defendants posting appropriate supersedeas bond.	AP 05-09040	View
07.11.2006	PWB	In re Scott, An application for unclaimed funds paid into the court’s registry by a trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 347(a) must show that the creditor has a present entitlement to the funds. An applicant seeking unclaimed funds due to distributions made on account of a secured claim must show that the debt has not been satisfied through payment or foreclosure and that an amount is currently due and payable to which the unclaimed funds may lawfully be applied. Because the applicant has not done so, the application is denied without prejudice. Any future application must be served on the debtors, their counsel, and the trustee.	BK 02-62305, doc no. 27	View
07.10.2006	JEM	Crowder v. Altegra Credit Company (In re Crowder) Motion of plaintiff to dismiss answer of defendant filed by attorneys lacking authorization to file answer for that defendant was granted where defendant had not ratified the answer. Motion to fine lawyers who filed unauthorized answer was denied. Sanctions payable to the Clerk are the province of the Court and could not be imposed based on a state statute urged by plaintiff. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 06-6067	View
07.10.2006	MGD	In re Fowler; Order disallowing claim for fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14 and disallowing the purported amended claim under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-80 as a late filed new claim.	BK 03-92256	View
07.07.2006	JEM	In re Brown Asserting that debtors assumed a lease, vehicle lessor moved for allowance of administrative claim based on excess mileage. Neither an order reimposing stay nor the order confirming debtors’ amended plan approved assumption of the lease, where plan provided only that debtors would to “continue post-petition lease payments” and would increase plan payment to trustee by amount of lease when lease ended. Lessor failed to show that the lease provided any benefit to the estate. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 02-66158	View
07.07.2006	MGD	Gingold v. Lemmons; Order finding transfers by Debtor of his residence and ninety percent of the stock in his business fraudulent under O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22(2) and § 18-2-22(3) and ordering Defendants to turnover the property to the Trustee and to pay the Trustee for the value of the stock.	AP 01-6452	View
07.07.2006	MGD	Anderson v. Peterson; Order denying cross motions for summary judgment and denying Defendants’ motion to amend the answer. If the debtor’s employer had a policy or practice of paying terminated employees for unused vacation upon termination, then the debtor’s contingent right to payment belongs to the bankruptcy estate and if the contingency occurs post-petition, the funds received belong to the Trustee.	AP 05-6520	View
07.07.2006	WHD	In re Smith; (denying motion for confirmation of termination of automatic stay)	BK 06-10571	View
07.07.2006	PWB	In re Pennington, The fact that the chapter 7 debtor is not entitled to a discharge in a case filed in 2005 because of the receipt of a chapter 7 discharge in an earlier case filed in 2004 does not result in dismissal of the current case or eliminate the need to sell property and administer the case. Creditors are entitled to be paid, if possible, from the liquidation of assets, and the debtor has an interest in the liquidation of assets, where feasible, to reduce her debt burden and realize the value of her exemption.	BK 05-96478, doc no. 54	View
06.30.2006	PWB	Pincus v. Long (In re Long), (Order on Plaintiff’s motion to strike reference to corporation and Defendant’s motion to dismiss. It is not inappropriate for debtor to list a Corporate name, to extent it is a trade name or a name under which the debtor may have incurred some personal liability, in the caption of the petition. Nevertheless, corporation is not a debtor in the bankruptcy case. Motion to dismiss denied because complaint sets forth 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) claims in sufficient detail for defendant to answer and defend)	AP 05-6292 Doc. No. 19	View
06.21.2006	CRM	In re Grady; (11 U.S.C. 1325(b)(1)(B), BAPCPA. Chapter 13 Trustee's Objection to Confirmation was denied and Debtors' Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtors will pay unsecured creditors according to the projected disposable income on Schedule J and not the disposable income on the Current Monthly Income Form)	BK 06-60726	View
06.20.2006	PWB	Pettigrew v. Sullivan (In re Sullivan), (Order granting Trustee’s motion for default judgment, denying debtor’s discharge pursuant to 727(a)(2) and 727(a)(5))	AP 06-6239	View
06.19.2006	JEM	In re Beckhom Debtor’s application for payment of funds in Court’s registry unclaimed by a creditor was denied where debtor failed to show that the debt had been paid or otherwise satisfied. The mere fact that the funds have not been claimed is irrelevant. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 99-77458	View
06.16.2006	PWB	MBNA v. Horrocks (In re Horrocks), (Order granting Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs under 523(d) and Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b)(3))	AP 05-6571, Doc. No. 13	View
06.13.2006	JEM	In re Sheppard The automatic stay does not stay a defendant’s motion to dismiss an action brought by a debtor. The question of whether the postpetition dismissal of a prepetition action brought by a debtor binds the trustee is noted but not decided. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-65467	View
06.13.2006	PWB	Carson v. Rhodes (In re Carson), (Order granting Debtor/Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, finding no valid lien or valid assignment of litigation proceeds exists and that defendant holds unsecured claim)	AP 05-4018, Doc. No. 23	View
06.09.2006	WHD	Watts v. Stone Crushers, Inc denying motion to compel discovery	AP 05-1130	View
06.08.2006	JB	In re Sumner; Court denied Debtor’s motion to reopen her Chapter 7 case to add a previously unlisted claim against a former husband. Chapter 7 Trustee opposed reopening the case as administration of the claim would be unduly burdensome and of no benefit to the estate	BK 01-71678	View
06.08.2006	JB	In re Simmons; 11 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a)(4); 1326(a), (a)(2); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3015(b)). Chapter 13 Trustee’s objection to confirmation sustained and his motion to reconvert case to Chapter 7 case granted. Debtor’s case been pending over one year without any payment to unsecured creditors; Debtor has failed to propose a confirmable Chapter 13 plan; he has failed to keep payments to the Chapter 13 Trustee current and failed to keep his mortgage payments current. Creditors will receive more value through a Chapter 7 Trustee’s liquidation of assets than under a Chapter 13 plan. Debtor’s counsel’s argument that Chapter 13 plan should not have to be proposed or funded until after claims bar date is without merit	BK 05-92328	View
06.06.2006	JB	In re Hamblen; (11 U.S.C. § 707(b)). Debtors’ pro se motion to dismiss three jointly administered cases denied. Chapter 7 Trustee, formerly the Chapter 11 Trustee, the United States Trustee, and numerous creditors opposed Debtors’ motion to dismiss. Testimony at the hearing raised questions regarding certain transactions, and Debtors failed to provide cause for dismissal.	BK 05-95215	View
06.05.2006	WHD	In re Cliftondale Oaks, LLC denying claim for administrative expense where insider of debtor had paid loan fees on behalf of the debtor without the debtor's authorization and without court approval, and the debtor never obtained the loan	BK 04-95161	View
06.01.2006	JEM	In re Clemons One joint debtor lost her job early in case, thereby reducing debtors’ actual income well below their prepetition “current monthly income.” Chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation, asserting that debtors’ plan failed to propose to pay their projected disposable income (based on prepetition CMI) to unsecured creditors. Court denied objection. Section 1325(b) permits a bankruptcy court to adjust CMI to approximate the income a debtor will receive during the plan term in order to better insure that a debtor pays what the debtor is able to pay but is not required to pay what is impossible to pay. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-85163	View
06.01.2006	WHD	In re Cobb compelling child support recovery office to reinstate debtor's drivers license, notwithstanding the fact that such action was not automatically stayed by the filing of the bankruptcy petition; debtor's Chapter confirmed Chapter 13 plan provided for full payment of both pre and post petition child support obligations and payments on both were current	BK 05-15204	View
06.01.2006	WHD	Mutual Savings Credit Union v. Mathis dismissing defendant/debtor's counterclaims for lacking of standing, as claims arose pre-petition and were part of the debtors' bankruptcy estate NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 06-1005	View
05.31.2006	WHD	In re McCarver; excusing debtor from filing missing pay advices	BK 06-10603	View
05.22.2006	WHD	Transportation Alliance Bank v. Owens; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on section 523(a)(2)(B) claim	AP 05-1020	View
05.18.2006	REB	In re Pearl Puplampu; (order amending confirmation order re denial of discharge based on previous filing and receipt of discharge) (11 U.S.C. Section 1328(f)(2))	BK 06-62184	View
05.17.2006	MGD	Roche v. Pep Boys, Inc.; Order awarding Plaintiff actual damages, damages for emotional distress, and attorneys fees pursuant to section 362(h) where Defendants’ willfully violated the automatic stay.	AP 05-09040	View
05.15.2006	JEM	In re Palmer Pro se debtor’s fourth case in five years was dismissed with prejudice under section 109(g) where debtor raised issue adjudicated in third case and failed to attend meeting of creditors. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 06-62439	View
05.09.2006	WHD	Looney v. Owens; denying plaintiff's motion for contempt and discovery sanctions	AP 05-1706	View
05.05.2006	PWB	MBNA v. Horrocks (In re Horrocks) (Order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(C) dischargeability claim. Plaintiff failed to allege facts to support claim under 523(a)(2)(A) and (C) and admitted absence of factual basis when it failed to respond to Defendant’s requests for admission.)	AP 05-6571, Doc. No. 10	View
05.04.2006	JEM	Williams v. Taylor (In re Taylor) Prior to bankruptcy, debtors refinanced residential mortgage loan with existing lender after creditor obtained a judgment against one debtor. Debtors exempted residence. Judgment creditor sued lender contending that its lien had priority over lender’s lien with respect to the increase in the amount of mortgage debt. Lender’s motion for summary judgment was denied as moot because the Court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). The outcome could not affect the estate because Debtors exempted the residence and could not affect Debtors because they had not sought to avoid the judgment lien. Hence, the proceeding was not related to the bankruptcy case. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-09140	View
05.04.2006	jb	In re Calloway; Debtor filed pro se motion to reimpose stay after foreclosure sale of her residence. Her former counsel and creditor’s counsel, after two different hearings, were directed but failed to prepare an Order granting relief to Debtor by keeping the stay in effect. After mortgage loan was transferred, second creditor foreclosed on property and evicted Debtor. Debtor had made mortgage payments to former counsel, but he had not sent the funds to the mortgage company. Counsel must promptly return to Debtor the $2,200 in funds and file a report evidencing the return	BK 04-94266	View
05.01.2006	WHD	In re Walker; sustaining debtor's objection to the United States Trustee's notice of presumed abuse; section 707(b)(2) permits debtor to subtract payments on secured debts, notwithstanding the debtor's intent to surrender the collateral securing the debt	BK 05-15010	View
04.26.2006	JB	Isaac v. Wachovia et al. (In re Isaac) (Debtor filed pro se complaint to determine dischargeability of student loans, alleging she is entitled to a discharge as repayment would be undue hardship. Eleventh Circuit has adopted Brunner test, and burden is on Debtor to show existence of the undue hardship.)	AP 05-9169	View
04.26.2006	JB	Isaac v. Wachovia et al. (In re Isaac) (Debtor’s pro se motion to strike one Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production denied as discovery requests appear to be within scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.)	AP 05-9169	View
04.25.2006	WHD	In re Mapp; (denying creditor's motion for order confirming lack of stay in accordance with section 362(c)(4)(A)(ii))	BK 06-10353	View
04.24.2006	WHD	In re Andersen 2000, Inc.; (granting motion for relief to pursue litigation against the debtor to the extent of insurance coverage)	BK 04-14155	View
04.19.2006	PWB	Holland v. Zimmerman (In re Zimmerman) Although bankruptcy court ordinarily should decline to relinquish its jurisdiction to permit arbitration of dischargeability issues arising under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) that the bankruptcy court must determine under § 523(c), this principle does not apply to a proceeding to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(19), relating to violations of federal and state securities law or common law fraud, deceit, or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. § 523(c) does not require the bankruptcy court to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(19). Because the debtor agreed to arbitrate, it is appropriate to lift the stay to permit the parties to arbitrate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act and to stay the dischargeability proceeding pending conclusion of the arbitration.	AP 06-6047 doc no. 19	View
04.17.2006	JB	In re Crawford (Debtor’s failure to file schedules, statement of financial affairs, copies of payment advices, and statement of monthly net income pursuant to § 521(i)(1) results in automatic dismissal of his Chapter 7 case, effective on the 46th day after filing petition.)	BK 06-61637	View
04.14.2006	JEM	In re Darnell Lee Carter Order confirming plan providing for flat fee is res judicata, requiring denial of fee application of Chapter 13 debtor’s attorney based on alleged hourly rate contract. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 00-75939	View
04.12.2006	MHM	American Express v. Chowdhury (default judgment granted in credit card case)	AP 05-6548	View
04.11.2006	WHD	In re Barkley; (denying default motion for relief for failure to comply with requirements of consent order providing for default relief)	BK 05-12644	View
04.10.2006	MHM	Anderson v. Sandstone Estates LLC (S&W International Food Specialties, Inc.) (applying §550, real estate closing attorney was financial conduit, not agent for principal)	AP 04-6185	View
04.06.2006	MHM	Ryan v. Reynolds (application of collateral estoppel)	AP 05-9078	View
04.06.2006	JB	In re Causey © U.C.C. 1-308 (United States Trustee’s motion to dismiss with prejudice Debtor’s pro se Chapter 11 case pursuant to § 1112(b), (b)(4)(F), and (b)(4)(H), granted on the grounds that Debtor failed to satisfy timely filing requirement; failed to provide certain information and attend meeting with United States Trustee; and for filing case not in good faith. Debtor’s request for recusal is denied)	BK 06-61237	View
04.05.2006	MHM	In re Champion-Lee (Chapter 7 Trustee's objection, on good faith grounds, to Debtor's motion to convert to Chapter 13 overruled)	BK 05-65635	View
04.05.2006	JEM	Anderson v. Kataria et al Debtor owned stock in corporation that owned grocery business and promised Chapter 7 trustee that if the business were sold, he would notify the trustee. Two years later without telling trustee, debtor caused corporation to sell the business and hired an attorney to close the transaction. Among others, trustee sued attorney for breach of fiduciary duty to corporation and negligent failure to discover the bankruptcy. Attorney’s motion for summary judgment was granted. Trustee lacked standing to pursue claim of breach of duty to corporation, failed to allege facts showing the existence of such duty, and failed to show that attorney’s acts or omissions caused any damage to the estate. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-6082	View
04.04.2006	JB	Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as successor in title to Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., v. Adams, Chapter 13 Trustee (In re Adams) (Movant’s amended motion for relief from stay to complete dispossessory proceedings against Debtor acting pro se granted. Amended motion accurately recited history of foreclosure and dispossessory proceedings between parties, including affirmation by Georgia Court of Appeals of state trial court’s grant of writ of possession. Bankruptcy Court has no authority to review state court judgment, and Debtor has presented no factual or legal basis to deny relief from automatic stay.)	BK 05-97399	View
04.04.2006	JEM	In re Sudderth Debtors’ motion to reopen case to amend schedules to show previously unlisted cause of action was granted over objection of defendant in state action. An undisclosed cause of action belongs to bankruptcy estate until abandoned by the trustee; section 350 permits reopening a case to administer assets. Reopening the case does not answer the question whether debtors deliberately omitted the cause of action from their schedules. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-63227	View
03.31.2006	MGD	Advantage Leasing Corp. v. Moss; Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, sections 727(a)(2) and 727(a)(4).	AP 05-06077	View
03.29.2006	JB	Ogier v. Upshur (In re Upshur) Trustee’s motion to disallow Debtor’s amended exemption claim in reopened Chapter 7 case granted based on Debtor’s intentional concealment of employment claims in her schedules, statement of financial affairs, and at § 341 meeting of creditors. Trustee’s second motion to approve settlement and compromise of litigation employment claim granted.	BK 03-82229;	View
03.27.2006	MHM	In re Perry (Granting Debtor's motion to set aside foreclosure sale that occurred in the period between dismissal and entry of order vacating dismissal)	BK 03-66133	View
03.27.2006	MGD	GUERRESO v. GUERRESO; Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for the Court to Consider Defendant’s Out of Time Response to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Though Plaintiff wishes to keep costs down and an unopposed motion for summary judgment may be in Plaintiff’s best interests, federal policy favors resolution of disputes on the merits as opposed to disposition on technicalities. The delay experienced by Plaintiff of a couple of days in an adversary proceeding that has been pending since May 2004, does not rise to the level of material prejudice sufficient for the Court to refuse to consider Defendant’s response to the motion for summary judgment.	AP 04-06238	View
03.24.2006	PWB	In re Mark Kavanaugh (as matter of first impression, court scheduled hearing on Creditor's request for dismissal under 521(i)(2) based upon the Debtor's failure to file Form B22. )	BK 06-60874	View
03.23.2006	JEM	Citibank(South Dakota), N.A. v. Ahn Iin re Ahn) Credit card issuer’s motion for default judgment was denied where complaint alleged legal conclusion that plaintiff’s reliance on false representation was justified but alleged no facts that if true would show justifiable reliance. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-06458	View
03.22.2006	PWB	Strong Industries, Inc. v. McKenzie (In re McKenzie) (Order denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment: state court judgment for conversion not entitled to collateral estoppel effect as to 523(a)(6) because under Georgia law a negligent or reckless act can give rise to conversion. No evidence of willfulness or intentionality to support entry of summary judgment on 523(a)(6) claim.)	AP 05-5008	View
03.20.2006	MHM	Warner, Mayoue, Bates, Nolen & Collar, PC v. Cook (law firm who represented Debtor in prepetition divorce lacks standing under §523(a)(5) and (15))	AP 05-9023	View
03.17.2006	JB	In re Andrews; Court granted Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to sell Debtor’s one-half interest in certain real estate free and clear of liens with liens to attach to proceeds, pursuant to § 363(b) and (f). The motion was granted over Debtor’s pro se objection, and Debtor’s sister, who owned other one-half interest in property and supported sale, was allowed payment of one-half the amounts she had advanced in property taxes to preserve property of the estate. § 503(b)(2)(B).	BK 05-66411	View
03.13.2006	MGD	In re Lewis; Order denying Trustee’s motion to reopen bar date. While the bankruptcy court lacks the authority to extend the time or reopen the bar date, creditors recently added by amendment may seek recourse under section 726(a)(2)(C).	BK 05-61605	View
03.09.2006	MHM	In re Myles (exempt income is nevertheless disposable income under §1325)	BK 05-92125	View
03.07.2006	JB	Isaac v. ZOM Residential Services, Inc. d/b/a Belcourt Apartment Homes (In re Isaac) Debtor filed adversary proceeding to discharge pre-petition and post-petition rent owed Defendant pursuant to § 523. Debtor’s pre-petition rent is discharged, but the Court has no authority to discharge post-petition rent owed by Debtor.	AP 06-9004	View
03.07.2006	JEM	Goodman v. Highwinds Software, LLC (In re Webusenet, Inc.) Defendant’s motion to dismiss preference complaint because it was not served within two years of petition date was denied. The date the complaint was filed is the relevant date. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-6532	View
03.03.2006	MGD	In re Wright; Order denying Trustee’s motion to reopen bar date. The bankruptcy court lacks the authority to extend the time or reopen the bar date except under the conditions stated in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) and 3002(c).	BK 05-92866	View
03.02.2006	JB	Turner, United States Trustee v. Touray (In re Touray) Court denied discharge under § 727(a)(8) which prevents a debtor from receiving a discharge if the debtor has previously received a discharge in a case filed within the last 6 years.	AP 05-6609	View
02.28.2006	WHD	In re Foster (denying debtor's motion to extend time to comply with order permitting debtors to redeem property at a specified value; holding that debtor's failure to redeem vehicle within time specified by section 521(B) did not extinguish their right to redeem)	BK 05-13797, docket number 18	View
02.28.2006	REB	In re Jon David Reed and Regina Hilton Reed (motion to re-impose stay, 11 USC Sections 362(c)(3), 105(a))	BK G05-25051-REB	View
02.10.2006	MGD	In re Thrasher; Upon conversion of a bankruptcy case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7, property of the Chapter 7 estate includes property of the estate as of the filing of the Chapter 13 petition, only to the extent that such property remains in the debtor’s possession, custody or control on the date of conversion.	BK 04-93810	View
02.08.2006	WHD	In re Cliftondale Oaks, LLC (denying debtor's objection to unsecured claim of real estate agent)	BK 04-95161, docket number 239	View
02.03.2006	WHD	Looney v. Owens (denying defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on dischargeability claim; denying motion for discovery sanctions)	AP 05-1706, docket number 66	View
01.31.2006	WHD	McLain v. Brown (granting motion to open default, denying motion for additional pre-trial conference, and setting trial date)	AP 02-1770	View
01.25.2006	WHD	R & L Dist., Inc. v. MacPherson (granting motion for summary judgment as to section 523(a)(2) claim)	AP 05-1701	View
01.18.2006	JEM	In re Roxanne Turner A trustee is not authorized based on a private communication to pay an unfiled unsecured claim to a creditor that holds an allowed fully secured claim. Creditor sought payment of funds paid into registry but failed to show that it had any interest in those funds. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 98-80469	View
01.17.2006	MHM	In re Middlebrooks (Trustee's objection to late-filed claim sustained); entered 2/8/06; notice of appeal filed 2/17/06; motion to approve settlement pending.)	BK 03-71937	View
01.06.2006	WHD	In re Cliftondale Oaks, LLC (sustaining in part and denying in part debtor's objection to secured claim; allowing default interest on secured debt where Chapter 11 estate is solvent, but disallowing late fees in addition to default interest)	BK 04-95161	View
01.06.2006	MGD	Roche v. Pep Boys, Inc.; Order denying Defendants’ motion for stay pending appeal since the prior order denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granting Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was not a final order and the appeal will likely be dismissed.	AP 05-09040	View
01.03.2006	WHD	Peachtree National Bank v. Lee (denying defendants' motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state a claim)	AP 05-1155	View
12.30.2005	MGD	Roche v. Pep Boys, Inc. (In re Roche) (Order denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. Defendants found to be in willful violation of the automatic stay by merely staying and not releasing bank garnishment which had been instituted pre-petition against Debtor. Defendants, although notified of the bankruptcy case, elected to take no action such as seeking relief from the stay or for adequate protection within a reasonable time period)	AP 05-9040	View
12.28.2005	JEM	Centennial HealthCare Corporation Holder of administrative expense claim moved for order allowing her to file a late claim on the ground she had not received the notice of the deadline. Reorganized debtors contended that there was a presumption of delivery of the notice based on affidavit of employee of servicing agent concerning mailing. Held: Affidavit was insufficient to created a presumption of delivery. Movant proved that she did not receive notice and that even if she had, her failure to file timely was due to excusable neglect. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 02-74974	View
12.23.2005	REB	In re Cotton (denial of motion to dismiss and conversion of case to case under chapter 7; 11 U.S.C. Section 1307(b) & (c))	BK 05-79109	View
12.20.2005	MGD	The Estate of Nelle Bowen Newton v. Lemmons (In re Lemmons) (Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. State court judgment on "all claims" satisfies Plaintiffs' dischargeability action due to collateral estoppel)	AP 00-6828	View
12.19.2005	MHM	An v. An (Sanctions against attorney)	AP 05-6277	View
12.19.2005	WHD	In re Allied Holdings; Docket Nos. 829 and 905 (exhibit B) (granting in part debtor's motion for approval of a key-employee retention program)	BK 05-12515	View
12.19.2005	JB	Turner, United States Trustee v. Stuart @UCC1-207 (In re Stuart) (United States Trustee’s motions to dismiss with prejudice Debtor’s two pro se Chapter 11 cases granted. United States Trustee has standing to file motions to dismiss. Case discusses distinction between U.S. Trustee and case trustees. Washington Mutual Bank F.A.’s motion to validate foreclosure sale at time debtor’s third case was filed denied. Third party purchaser of Debtor’s property objected to creditor’s motion to annul automatic stay and validate foreclosure sale. 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 307, 341, 343, 349, 702, 1104, 112(b))	BK 05-95809 and BK 05-96715	View
12.14.2005	JEM	In re Damiano Creditor moved for order allowing a late filed claim in a Chapter 7 case on the ground that she had not received proper notice of the bar date. Held: Motion denied. Court lacks authority to extend bar date under applicable rules. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-98349	View
12.07.2005	MHM	Johnson v. Engel (Mandatory abstention)	AP 05-9067	View
12.02.2005	JEM	Stinson v. Morris (In re Morris) Court granted motion for summary judgment on complaint seeking to determine debt to be non-dischargeable based on state court judgment. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-9031	View
12.02.2005	MHM	Vaughn v. Pipkin (Continuation of the automatic stay)	BK 05-85295	View
12.02.2005	JB	Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. V. Armeka Michelle Townsend (In re Townsend) (debtor filed pro se emergency motion to reconsider Order of dismissal pursuant to § 109(g), to shorten time, and to permit case refiling due to previous extreme hardships and current positive change of circumstances. Previous Order of dismissal appropriate and debtor’s failure to make Chapter 13 plan payments and post-petition mortgage arrearage payments within additional time given warrants denial of debtor’s emergency motion)	BK 04-98268	View
11.30.2005	JB	In re Bill J. Miller Debtor’s pro se motion “to retain home,” which was treated as a motion for reconsideration of two Orders, one dismissing his Chapter 13 case and the other validating a foreclosure sale of his residence, was denied as Debtor had filed previous cases and had opportunities to propose a feasible Chapter 13 plan	BK 04-90866	View
11.28.2005	MHM	Point Center Financial, Inc. v. Gold Rush II, Inc. (dismissal of Chapter 11 case filed in bad faith)	BK 05-60412	View
11.25.2005	MHM	Ogum v. Om (sua sponte dismissal of pro se complaint that fails to state a claim)	AP 05-9010	View
11.18.2005	WHD	In re Tucker (denying debtor's motion to impose stay to prevent eviction that was excluded from the automatic stay by virtue of section 362(b)(22) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-15001	View
11.17.2005	PWB	Nasuti v. Woodward (In re Woodward) (Order granting Trustee's motion for default judgment and denying Debtor's discharge pursuant to sections 727(a)(2)(B), 727(a)(3), 727(a)(4)(A), 727(a)(4)(D), and 727(a)(5))	AP 05-6305	View
11.17.2005	JEM	In re Rhodes, Inc. Landlord’s motion for payment of rent pursuant to section 365(d)(2) granted in part and denied in part. Court found that landlord failed to prove that obligation in lease to pay rent for the month during which debtor filed bankruptcy arose after the first day of the month. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-78434	View
11.17.2005	JB	Isaac v. ZOM Residential Services, Inc. d/b/a Belcourt Apartment Homes (In re Isaac) 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Debtor’s motion to proceed on appeal of Order granting landlord relief from the automatic stay in forma pauperis denied because, although she meets test for indigence under statute, she has no factual or legal basis to support her appeal and, therefore, does not meet the “good faith” test required by the statute. Debtor must pay filing fee if she chooses to continue her appeal	BK 05-95374	View
11.17.2005	JB	In re Isaac Debtor’s request for refund of Chapter 7 filing fee because of in forma pauperis status denied because Debtor’s case was filed on August 22, 2005 and prior to October 17, 2005 an individual filing for bankruptcy had no right to proceed in forma pauperis and bankruptcy court had no authority to waive the filing fee	BK 05-95374	View
11.17.2005	MHM	In re Stenson (construction and reconsideration of pro se pleadings)	BK 05-93978	View
11.15.2005	MGD	In re Gibson; Order sustains debtor's objection to deficiency claim due to car creditor's admitted failure to fully comply with applicable non-bankruptcy law when liquidating collateral after obtaining relief from the automatic stay;	BK 05-40782	View
11.09.2005	PWB	Carson v. Rhodes (In re Carson) (Order denying debtor's motion for default judgment to set aside assignment of interest in wrongful death suit proceeds because the complaint does not allege sufficient facts to determine whether the creditor's interest in proceeds via an assignment is invalid because it does not comply with the requirements of Georgia law)	AP 054018	View
11.03.2005	REB	In re David Hilton 11 USC Sec. 523, F.R.B.P. 4007(c), denying extension of time to file complaint objecting to dischargeability	BK 05-63964	View
11.01.2005	MGD	Gordon v. ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. Order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Under Georgia law of equitable subrogation Debtor’s transfer of a security deed to Defendant was a contemporaneous exchange for new value and therefore excepted from avoidance as a preference.	AP 04-06438	View
10.31.2005	JB	In re Bland (Individual filed bankruptcy case after new eligibility requirement of 11 U.S.C. §109(h) went into effect. To be a debtor now requires individual to obtain credit counseling briefing before filing case unless there are exigent circumstances and individual requested the counseling but was unable to obtain it during 5 day period from the request [§ 109(h)(3)] or individual is exempted from counseling due to mental incapacity, physical disability, or on active military duty in combat zone [§109(h)(4)]. This individual did not submit certification of exigent circumstances supporting waiver request or statement supporting exemption from counseling. A hearing will be held to allow presentation of factual basis for waiver request and to determine whether individual is eligible to be a debtor.)	BK 05-85009	View
10.31.2005	JB	In re Monteiro Individual filed bankruptcy case after new eligibility requirement of 11 U.S.C. §109(h) went into effect. To be a debtor now requires individual to obtain credit counseling briefing before filing case unless there are exigent circumstances and individual requested the counseling but was unable to obtain it during 5 day period from the request [§ 109(h)(3)] or individual is exempted from counseling due to mental incapacity, physical disability, or on active military duty in combat zone [§109(h)(4)]. This individual’s certification of exigent circumstances is insufficient, but if she files supplement that appears to justify a waiver and obtains counseling within 30 days of filing the petition, Court will hold hearing to determine whether waiver request is satisfactory and she is eligible to be a debtor. Otherwise case must be dismissed	BK 05-85018	View
10.25.2005	JEM	In re Peachtree Statford, LLC Creditor moved to dismiss case in May 2003, and the Court orally granted the motion at a hearing held on June 3, 2003. The Order granting the motion was entered on June 9, 2003. Between those dates, the creditor ran its first advertisement. In July 2003, the creditor foreclosed. Debtor now contends that the foreclosure was void because running the ad prior to the entry of the order violated the automatic stay. Creditor moved to reopen the case to obtain an annulment of the stay. Held: Motion denied. Court lacks power under section 350 to reopen dismissed case to entertain motion as if case had never been dismissed. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 01-65822	View
10.14.2005	MHM	In re Bramlett Plumbing, Inc (Directs return of prepetition retainer paid to professional who was not employed by Debtor)	BK 05-73925	View
10.03.2005	PWB	Broadfoot v. Belford (In re Nationwide Warehouse & Storage) (Order granting Trustee's request for turnover of documents, ruling defendant's invocation of the attorney-client privilege was inapplicable)	AP 036550	View
10.03.2005	REB	In re CLC of Dahlonega LLC; (deferring objection to claims for punitive damages)	BK 04-21769	View
10.03.2005	MHM	Ballew v. Smith (collateral estoppel effect of state court contempt order regarding child support)	AP 03-6184	View
09.30.2005	WHD	In re Dan River, Inc (granting application for compensation)	BK 04-10990, doc. # 1585	View
09.30.2005	MGD	Ogier v. Trautman (In re Express Factors, Inc.) ( Order granting in part and denying in part cross motions for summary judgment addressing the Trustee's action to recover preferential transfers and the applicability of the ordinary course of business defense)	AP 04-06076, doc # 49	View
09.29.2005	MHM	Oliver v. Samadi (allowance of postpetition and postdischarge interest on oversecured claim)	AP 00-6893	View
09.29.2005	MHM	The Cit Group v. Kim (dischargeabilty under §523(a)(2)(A): loan nondischargeable because obtained by misrepresentations regarding use of motorhome)	AP 04-6521	View
09.28.2005	JEM	In re Mulkey In their Chapter 13 plan Debtors proposed to pay two nondischargeable educational debts in full but to pay only 1% of other nonpriority unsecured debts. The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to confirmation. Held: Confirmation denied. Plan unfairly discriminates against class of dischargeable unsecured claims in violation of section 1322(b)(1).	BK 04-81390	View
09.27.2005	MHM	Ogum v. Murphy (recusal from proceeding naming presiding judge as defendant)	AP 05-9127	View
09.27.2005	JEM	Pioneer Credit Co. v. Detamore (In re Detamore) The Court denied a motion for entry of a default judgment. What are the questions a court considers in deciding whether or not to grant a motion for a default judgment? This decision provides those questions and some of the analytic framework for answering them. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-6079	View
09.26.2005	MHM	Kennesaw Drywall & Supply, Inc. v. Davis (Default judgment denied because attorney negligence does not constitute defalcation under §523(a)(4))	AP 04-9209	View
09.20.2005	WHD	In re Respert (denying creditors request for attorney's fees in connection with filing motion for relief from stay pending submission of additional documents) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-90606, doc # 23	View
09.19.2005	WHD	Summit United Service, Inc. v. Meijer, Inc., et al (denying defendant's motion for summary judgment) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-6247, doc # 97	View
09.13.2005	JEM	Ponder v. Apyron Technologies, Inc. (In re Apyron Technologies, Inc. In response to complaint asserting that Plaintiff was exclusive owner of technology developed while he was employed by Defendant, Defendant objected to Defendant’s claim, sought to subordinate it, and demanded injunctive relief against Plaintiff. Defendant moved for summary judgment to which Plaintiff did not respond. Earlier, U.S. District Court followed this Court’s recommendation (see posted order dated 04/25/05) to grant Defendant’s motion as to its ownership rights in the technology. In this order, the Court granted the balance of the motion. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6443	View
09.08.2005	MHM	Glass v. Lister (motion to open default granted)	AP 05-6246	View
09.07.2005	MHM	In re Hendrix (Debtor's motion to reopen to adjudicate post-discharge claim regarding her coop in NYC denied)	BK 99-71718	View
09.07.2005	MHM	In re Harris (Extending time for creditor added by amendment near or after the bar date)	BK 05-66166	View
09.06.2005	REB	Tynes v. Lowell (In re Lowell) (11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(5) & (a)(15))	BK 04-30598-REB, AP 05-2014	View
09.06.2005	MHM	Burns v. Hassan (Substitution denied because movant lacks standing)	AP 04-9205	View
09.02.2005	JEM	Thurmond v. Rajapakse (In re Rajapakse Trustee moved for turnover of assets located outside of United States and an accounting of those assets. Debtors opposed motion on the ground that property of the estate did not include such assets. Motion Granted. Congress intended the words “wherever located” in section 541 to include assets located outside the U.S. in which a debtor has an interest. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-81065	View
09.01.2005	JEM	Gordon v. Toon (In re Inline Orthodontics, LLC) Plaintiff served Defendant by U.S. Mail at his address in Ontario, Canada. Defendant did not respond, and Plaintiff moved for entry of a default judgment. Motion Denied. Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b) permits service by mail only within the U.S. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6631	View
08.31.2005	JEM	Gordon v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. (In re Hedrick) Lender refinanced two loans secured by the Debtors’ residence with the understanding of Debtors that Lender’s security deed would be a first priority lien. Lender delayed in recording security deed until approximately one month after making loan. Debtors filed bankruptcy 89 days after security deed was recorded. Trustee sued to avoid recording of security deed as a preference. Lender’s motion for summary judgment granted and Plaintiff’s motion denied. Lender was equitably subrogated to the lien positions of the prior lenders when it paid off those loans; recording the security deed did not improve its perfected first priority position. Obtaining those liens with Debtors’ consent constituted the transfer, which was made outside the 90-day preference period NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6420	View
08.30.2005	PWB	Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. v. Abram (In re Abram) (Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss dischargeability complaint on grounds that it was not timely filed and the Plaintiff offered no defense, legal or equitable, to the motion to dismiss.)	AP 05-6310	View
08.29.2005	WHD	Rutherford v. Auto Cash, Inc. (granting debtor's motion for sanctions for violation of automatic stay)	AP 04-6679	View
08.29.2005	JEM	In re Centennial Healthcare, Inc. Unsecured Claims Administrator sought disallowance of proof of claim that included punitive damages on ground that punitive damages were not allowed in bankruptcy. Objection Denied. The inclusion of punitive damages is not a ground for disallowing a claim under section 502(b). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 02-74974	View
08.26.2005	WHD	In re Stephens: (granting motion to avoid lien) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-10320	View
08.25.2005	CRM	Mosley v. ECMC (In re Mosley) (523(a)(8), student loan discharged as undue hardship)	AP 04-9139	View
08.23.2005	JEM	Truslow v. Brown (In re Brown) Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint but did not include a copy of the proposed amendment with the motion or otherwise file the proposed amendment. Motion Denied. It is impossible to determine whether unfiled amendment would be in the interests of justice as required by Civil Rule 15. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-9210	View
08.23.2005	MHM	In re Stenson Denying in forma pauperis status and dismissal for failure to pay filing fee	BK 05-93978	View
08.22.2005	PWB	Kaye v. Word Entertainment (In re Value Music Concepts, Inc.) The Chapter 11 plan description of avoidance actions, including preference claims, as the type or category of causes of action of the estates to be retained and prosecuted by the Creditor Representative is sufficient to expressly reserve them from any possible res judicata effect of the confirmation order and to expressly identify them for postconfirmation prosecution under § 1123(b)(3) by the Creditor Representative. Furthermore, the Court concludes that the Settlement Agreement was not an executory contract; therefore, the fact that assumption and payment may have been made pursuant to it does not provide a defense to the preference actions.	AP 04-6207	View
08.19.2005	MGD	The Cadle Company v. Taras (In re Taras) Denying Debtor's discharge pursuant to section 727(a)(4)	AP 04-06240	View
08.19.2005	MGD	Wilson & Associates, Attorneys, P.C. v. Parker (In re Parker) Denying Defendant's request to vacate consent judgment	AP 03-09029	View
08.16.2005	JEM	Indymac Bank v. Mitchell (In re Mitchell) Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its claim that a debt owed by Defendant/Debtor arose from fraud and was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2). The only evidence that Plaintiff justifiably relied on the alleged false representations of Defendant was supplied by an affidavit of an officer having no apparent personal knowledge of the transaction. Motion Denied. Affiant’s conclusion that bank relied was based on critical facts not in evidence – that the persons who approved the loan knew what the application stated and would have made a different decision had they known that the application was inaccurate. The fact that company policy would have prohibited the loan had the loan application been accurate does not show reliance. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6555	View
08.12.2005	PWB	Richardson, Trustee v. Pilgrim (In re Pilgrim) Order granting Trustee's motion for default judgment and denying Debtors' discharges under 727(a)(5) based on Debtors' failure to explain disposition of $41,000 in settlement proceeds received pre-petition.	AP 04-4054	View
08.12.2005	REB	Bellows v. Froug (In re Froug) (11 U.S.C. 523(a)(5), dischargeability of obligations arising from divorce decree)	AP 05-2009	View
08.11.2005	MHM	Vaughn v. Citizens Trust Bank (Mo to open default granted because Defendant was not properly served)	AP 05-6552	View
08.09.2005	WHD	Wright v. Wright: order directing defendant to produce certain documents in response to discovery requests)	AP 04-9156	View
08.09.2005	CRM	General Time Corporation v. Schneider Atlanta, L.P. (In re General Time Corporation) Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment of a preferential transfer denied and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment granted based on Defendant's defense of contemporaneous exchange for new value	AP 03-6315	View
08.09.2005	CRM	In re Chewning & Frey Security, Inc., f/k/a McLaughlin-Frey Security, Inc. Granting In Part, Denying In Part Application for Compensation filed by Special Counsel for the Chapter 7 Trustee	BK 96-77872	View
08.08.2005	MGD	Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Han (In re Han) Granting in part Plaintiff's second motion for default judgment, section 523(a)(2)(A)	AP 04-06478	View
08.05.2005	PWB	Gordon v. Vongsamphanh (In re Phongsavath) In avoidance action, where insider status is based on a pseudo-familial relationship, the Court's task is to distinguish between friendship alone, which does not give rise to insider treatment, and a de facto family relationship, which does. Because the undisputed facts are also consistent with mere friendship, the Court cannot make inferences to conclude that they establish, as a matter of law, that Defendant was a de facto relative with insider status, resulting in denial of summary judgment.	AP 04-6529	View
08.04.2005	WHD	In re Kenard: (granting motion to validate foreclosure and dismissing debtor's case for failure to pay filing fee) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-94380	View
08.04.2005	WHD	In re Kenard: (granting motion to validate foreclosure and dismissing debtor's case for failure to pay filing fee) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-94380	View
08.03.2005	WHD	In re Bush: (denying debtor's motion for stay pending appeal) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-93104	View
08.03.2005	MGD	In re Michael Sustaining Trustee's objection to Debtor's claim of exemption on her variable life annuity	BK 04-80726	View
08.03.2005	MHM	In re Dunbar uspension of attorney for failure to provide her clients with competent legal representation/abandonment	BK 03-96395	View
07.29.2005	WHD	In re Harris (granting motion for relief from stay and dismissing debtor's case due to ineligibility under section 109(g)(2)) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-12216	View
07.28.2005	PWB	In re Michalski (Order regarding conduct of debtor's attorney and the professional responsibilities of an attorney representing a chapter 7 debtor) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-95667	View
07.28.2005	CRM	In re Trusted Net Media Holdings, LLC; (Sections 502(a), 704(5); Bankruptcy Rule 3007. Denying Motion to Allow Filings of Motions for Summary Judgment)	BK 02-93973	View
07.19.2005	PWB	Hahlbohn v. Georgia Department of Revenue (In re Hahlbohn) (Order granting Georgia Department of Revenue's motion for summary judgment, finding tax debtor 2000 and 2001 is excepted from discharge under 523(a)(1). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-6145	View
07.19.2005	PWB	Turner v. Unifund CCR Partners Assignee of Providian National Bank (In re Turner) Order denying motion to avoid lien and amended motion to avoid lien without prejudice due to improper service of motion and notice NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-67195	View
07.14.2005	WHD	In re Bush (granting motion for relief from stay to permit creditor to continue eviction proceedings and denying debtor's motion for refusal) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-93104	View
07.14.2005	JB	Broadfoot, as Trustee, v. United Furniture Industries, Inc. (In re Nationwide Warehouse & Storage, LLC) Trustee moved to vacate Order approving a compromise and settlement. Trustee’s motion granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(3), and the failure to provide adequate notice pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9019	AP 03-6531, BK 01-86600	View
07.13.2005	JRM	Evanston Ins. Co. v. Centennial Healthcare Corp. The discharge injunction imposed by section 524 and by the confirmation order do not bar an insurance company from filing a complaint in the U.S. district court to obtain a declaratory judgment as to its rights and duties under an insurance policy covering Debtor for personal injuries. Court lacks jurisdiction to allow insurance company’s unfiled proof of claim; issue of whether its claim would be disallowed because it was filed after the bar date must await the filing of the claim and an objection on that ground. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 02-74974	View
07.13.2005	MHM	Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. May (motion to extend discovery granted because Debtor failed to show specific prejudice that would result from such extension)	AP 04-9177	View
07.12.2005	JEM	Natale, Trustee v. The Home Depot, Inc. ( In re Krause, Inc.) Trustee sued Home Depot to recover balance due for postpetition sales of ladders. Home Depot moved for summary judgment, contending it could recoup or set off what it owed Debtor (Krause) against Krause’s debt to Home Depot arising out of failure to provide insurance and indemnity with respect to sales of defective ladders. Motion denied. Home Depot failed to show that Krause’s obligations to Home Depot arose from the same transaction as Home Depot’s obligation to Krause (thereby precluding recoupment) or that its claims and Krause’s claims were both prepetition obligations or both postpetition obligations (thereby precluding setoff). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 01-6574	View
07.07.2005	JEM	Pioneer Credit Co. v. Roubieu (in re Roubieu) In action to deny the Debtor’s discharge or, alternatively to determine dischargeability of debt, secured creditor contended that Debtor sold collateral within one year of bankruptcy in violation of security agreement with intend to defraud creditor and that Debtor fraudulently and falsely stated that he had transferred assets. Held: judgment for Debtor. Security Agreement did not unambiguously prohibit transfers of collateral. Plaintiff failed to prove Debtor deliberately lied, as opposed to being mistaken or negligent, in stating he had not transferred an asset within one year. [§§ 727(a)(2), (a)(4), 523(a)(6)] NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6394	View
07.07.2005	REB	Gordon v. American Honda Finance Corp. (In re Vollmer) (11 U.S.C. Section 547, voidable preferential transfer)	AP 04-6490	View
07.05.2005	JEM	Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Rhodes (In re Rhodes, Inc.) Landlord moved for payment as an expense of administration its legal fees incurred in opposing Debtor’s motion to extend time to assume or reject a sublease. Motion was denied because Landlord failed to show any benefit requested by or conferred on estate. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-78434	View
07.05.2005	MHM	Lim v. Lee (failure to serve Debtor's attorney within the 120 day time limit of FRBP 7004(m) does not render complaint untimely filed under FRBP 4007)	AP 04-9120	View
07.05.2005	MHM	In re Copeland (Debtor's exemption claim denied due to Debtor's failure to disclose and then later unauthorized sale of the subject property)	BK 03-60407	View
07.05.2005	MHM	General Electric Capital Business Asset Funding Corp. v. Kabiri (default judgment entered due to Defendant's failure in all respects, except filing an answer, to participate in the AP)	AP 04-6136	View
07.05.2005	MHM	Jones v. Ferdinand (motion for reconsideration denied because insufficient grounds alleged for reconsideration)	AP 02-9226	View
07.01.2005	JEM	In re Lisa Bridgers Petition filed in name of Debtor was signed by her husband, who was ineligible to file bankruptcy. Court modified stay to permit creditors to continue foreclosure efforts short of transferring title and required Debtor to appear at Clerk’s office with identification to execute petition. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-94331	View
06.30.2005	WHD	Callaway v. IRS (granting defendant's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's complaint to have the Court force the IRS to release a tax lien) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1705	View
06.28.2005	JEM	NAP Chesterfield LP v. Rhodes (In re Rhodes, Inc.) Landlord sought payment of postpetition rent on premises leased by Debtor, which it subleased to third party. Third party, also in bankruptcy, paid Landlord directly after the petition date. Landlord applied such payments to prepetition rent due from Rhodes. Held: Landlord’s application of payments violated automatic stay as a an act to collect a debt. There was no evidence to show that subtenant was paying or could legally pay a prepetition debt owed by Rhodes. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-78434	View
06.24.2005	REB	Gay v. Rabun County Bank, et al. (In re Gay) (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8005, stay pending appeal)	G04-30523	View
06.23.2005	MHM	In re Williams (Reopening to change amount of claim is unnecessary and does not affect whether the claim is discharged)	BK 03-80594	View
06.23.2005	MHM	Wright v. Wright (order authorizing alternative dispute resolution, specifically, an evaluative and directive settlement conference with another bankruptcy judge)	AP 03-6259	View
06.22.2005	PWB	In re McKee (Despite failure to fill in box #4 on the proof of claim form, claimant attached sufficient documentation for court to determine amount of claim. Trustee properly objected to claim because, as filed, it was not capable of being administered) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-60474	View
06.20.2005	JEM	Wilmann v. Alexander Properties Group (In re Hidden Point Properties, LP) Creditors of Debtor brought claims against Wilmann in state court contending it was a de facto general partner of Debtor. Wilmann sued creditors, seeking benefit of automatic stay so as to enjoin the state court cases. Motion for preliminary injunction denied because Wilmann could not show any of the 4 prerequisites, and in particular any likelihood of success on merits. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-6197	View
06.20.2005	JEM	Duval of Ga. v. Merrill Lynch Business Financial Services (In re Duval of Ga.) Debtor sued its secured lender in an attempt to stop a foreclosure on property owned by Debtor’s principal in which Debtor conducts its business and with complaint filed a motion for “Expedited Hearing on Complaint.” Motion denied because motion sought immediate trial; proper procedure was to have filed motion for TRO or preliminary injunction. Motion alleged no facts to support injunctive relief. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-6255	View
06.13.2005	MHM	In re Tant (Even when the client terminates an attorney's employment, the attorney must file a motion to withdraw)	BK 04-74820	View
06.07.2005	WHD	Adams v. Rainwater (In re Rainwater) (granting plaintiff's complaint, finding that a debt arising under a divorce decree is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(15)) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-1747	View
06.07.2005	MHM	CIS Corp. v. Williams (Non-creditor lacks standing to object to discharge)	AP 04-9181	View
06.07.2005	MHM	In re Farris (denies motion to proceed with appeal in forma pauperisbecause appeal lacks merit)	BK 95-77431	View
05.27.2005	REB	Stanley v. Carpenter, et al. (In re Stanley) (11 U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(5) & (a)(15), dischargeability, summary judgment, collateral estoppel)	AP 05-2002	View
05.26.2005	REB	Black v. Franklin (In re Franklin) (11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A), dischargeability, collateral estoppel, apportionment challenge to state court award)	AP 04-9134	View
05.24.2005	WHD	Cofield v. Holcombe (In re Holcombe) (striking defendant's answer as a sanction for failure to comply with Court's order compelling discovery and entering default judgment in favor of plaintiff) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1059	View
05.19.2005	REB	Gay v. Rabun County Bank, et al. (In re Gay) (28 U.S.C. Section 1334(b), subject matter jurisdiction)	AP 05-2005	View
05.16.2005	REB	Barnes v. Cavalry Investments LLC (In re Barnes) (O.C.G.A. Section 44-13-100(a), 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f), entitlement to exemption in real property by virtue of interest of non-filing spouse)	BK 04-23195	View
05.16.2005	WHD	Huffaker v. United States of America (In re Huffaker) (granting defendant's motion to set aside entry of default on the basis that the plaintiff presented no evidence to the Court to permit entry of default against the United States of America) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1712	View
05.13.2005	PWB	In re Shenika Maddox-Rhynes (Order denying Debtor's motion to reopen case because there is no legal basis for relief requested. Having voluntarily reaffirmed a debt on a vehicle, Debtor cannot now add the deficiency claim based upon the surrender of the vehicle after the time for rescinding the reaffirmation agreement has expired.)	BK 03-81228	View
05.13.2005	PWB	Arnold v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Georgia, (Chapter 13 Debtors' motion for default judgment on complaint to strip off a third priority lien set for hearing so that Debtor may put on evidence and address: (1) the appropriate date for valuation under section 506(a) and 1322(b)(2); and (2) whether Debtors are bound by the value in their schedules based on principles of res judicata or judicial estoppel)	AP 05-4001	View
05.11.2005	JEM	In re Barron Pro se Chapter 13 Debtor’s post-confirmation objection to proof of claim of secured creditor on ground that interest rate higher than 7% would make it impossible for debtor to perform plan denied. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-90778	View
05.09.2005	WHD	Summit United Services LLC v. Amazon Imaging, Inc. (In re Summit United Services LLC) (denying defendant's motion to extend time to answer on the basis that the pleading was not prepared and filed by a licensed attorney, and a corporate defendant may not proceed pro se) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6659	View
05.09.2005	JEM	Ogier v. Johnson (In re Healing Touch, Inc.) Wife of president of Debtor was insider of the debtor within meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(31), whether or not she was related to her husband by affinity and even though she had no control over debtor, because she had a close relationship to her insider husband and loans she made to debtor and their repayment were not arms’ length transactions. Judgment on preference claim for trustee. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6051	View
05.05.2005	REB	Nasuti v. Stewart, et al. (In re Stewart) (priority of liens, judgment lien and federal and state tax liens)	AP 04-2051	View
05.03.2005	JEM	Brewer v. Whirl (In re Whirl) Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment in section 523(a)(2) case, rejecting contentions that note given to evidence the debt effected a novation thereby barring a claim that plaintiff had been defrauded and that note was an accord and satisfaction of fraud claim. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6497	View
04.28.2005	PWB	In re Carolyn Jacobs (Order on Debtor's objection to proof of claim of Vineyards Condominium Association, Inc. Court concludes that only $2,127.25 of the $4,132.95 fees and expenses requested were allowable as "reasonable attorney's fees actually incurred" under OCGA 44-3-109(b))	BK 04-68654	View
04.25.2005	WHD	Maloney v. Weintraub (In re Weintraub) (denying plaintiff's motion to amend complaint to add cause of action against additional defendants for avoidance of a fraudulent transfer because plaintiff lacked standing to pursue such claims and, therefore, amendment would be futile) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-9207, BK 04-75671	View
04.25.2005	JEM	Miller v. Bratschi (In re Baita Real Estate, Inc.) Plaintiff’s first amendment to the complaint, filed prior to any response by defendants, stated it superceded the original complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff then filed a withdrawal of the amendment. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff had withdrawn its only complaint. Motion Denied. Withdrawal of the amendment would have withdrawn the statement that the original complaint was superceded, thus would have restored the original complaint and hence was itself an amendment. Civil Rule 15, made applicable by Fed.R. Bank. P. 7015, required leave of court to withdraw the amendment in the absence of consent of defendants. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6678	View
04.25.2005	JEM	Builders Transport, Inc. v. Two Trees, et al. (In re Builders Transport, Inc.) Plaintiff’s motion for order directing Clerk to certify judgment for filing in another district granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, notwithstanding that judgment was appealed, where defendants had no assets in this District but had assets in the New York. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 99-6480	View
04.20.2005	pwb	In re Tricia Jordan (Order continuing evidentiary hearing and notice to creditor's attorney and debtor's attorney to show cause. On the evening before specially set evidentiary hearing, creditor's attorney filed motion for continuance and left voicemail message "advising" the courtroom deputy of the continuance on the day of hearing. Court finds that professionalism dictates that parties contact court well in advance of hearing and that the presumption that other parties, including the Chapter 13 trustee and the court reporter, are not affected "illustrates an indifference to the value of other persons' time and schedules that the Court will not tolerate." Although motion for continuance granted, court directed attorneys to show cause why they should not be required to pay the fee incurred by the Court for the unnecessary services of a court reporter.)	BK 05-60156	View
04.20.2005	WHD	Carden v. Suddeth (In re Suddeth) (denying plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings because of improper service and granting defendant's motion to reopen default) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1050, BK 04-17273	View
04.19.2005	WHD	Chase Manhattan Bank v. Harrell (In re Harrell) (denying plaintiff's motion for default judgment and allowing plaintiff an opportunity to amend complaint or submit additional evidence to support the plaintiff's claim) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 05-1010, BK 04-13732	View
04.11.2005	JEM	In re Christine Webb Chapter 13 debtor is not required to obtain court approval to employ an attorney in a child custody dispute but the debtor may not pay the attorney with estate property without court approval, but court granted application to employ. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-74482	View
04.07.2005	REB	Miller v. Chappell (In re Shaw) (F.R.C.P. 4(m), F.R.B.P. 7004, extending time for service of process)	AP 04-6259	View
04.05.2005	JEM	Turner v. Allen Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over debtor who claimed to be beyond the Court’s power as a “sojourner with no ties to the land” and “an Indigenous Peoples (sic) in the lineage of the Olmec Civilization, with heritage upon the land, Muu Lan.” NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6574	View
04.04.2005	WHD	Wright v. Wright (In re Wright) (denying in part and granting in part plaintiff's motion for sanctions against defendant for failure to cooperate in discovery) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-9156, BK 04-94519	View
04.04.2005	WHD	In re Brewer (denying in part and granting in part plaintiff's motion for sanctions against defendant for failure to cooperate in discovery) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-72039	View
04.04.2005	WHD	Fisher v. Quay (In re Quay) (extending discovery over the objection of the defendant) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6065, BK 03-63644	View
03.31.2005	JEM	In re Stadler Debtor is the sole member of a limited liability company known as Law Group of Georgia by Stadler, LLC. Prior to the bankruptcy, N.C.A. Systems of Illinois, Inc. sued Debtor and the LLC and later obtained a judgment against the LLC. N.C.A. allegedly continued to collect receivables of the LLC after Debtor’s bankruptcy. Zamora, a creditor of Debtor, moved to hold N.C.A. in contempt for violating the automatic stay. Held: Motion denied. Property of LLC is not property of Debtor’s estate, and Zamora lacks standing to enforce the automatic stay. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-91944	View
03.30.2005	JB	In re Alexander (on Debtor’s motion for stay pending appeal, Court denied Debtor’s motion but modified previous Order prohibiting Debtor from filing any bankruptcy case for 180 days to allow him to file a Chapter 7 case and allowed Homecomings Financial to foreclose but not record its deed without written consent of Chapter 7 Trustee or Court approval if Debtor filed a Chapter 7 before the foreclosure date)	BK 04-97724	View
03.29.2005	WHD	Fisher v. Quay (denying motion for summary judgment as to creditor's section 523(a)(2)(A) and 727(a)(3) claims) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6065; docket number 94	View
03.29.2005	WHD	C & W Acquisition Asset, LLC v. Dayvolt (In re Dayvolt) (denying plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement agreement where settlement required debtor to enter a reaffirmation agreement) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 02-1021, docket number 18	View
03.29.2005	MHM	Decision One Mortgage Co. LLC v. Brantley (dischargeability Defendants' motion to dismiss or abstain because of pending state court proceeding denied)	AP 04-9176	View
03.29.2005	MHM	CJH Capital Corp v. Yavuncu (Debtor's presentation of a bad check was a false representation; Plaintiff entitled to dischargeability judgment under §523(a)(2)(A))	AP 03-9293,	View
03.29.2005	REB	Black v. Franklin (In re Franklin) (11 USC 523(a)(2)(A), nondischargeability)	AP 04-9134	View
03.28.2005	WHD	McLain v. Brown (denying motion to reconsider order denying motion for summary judgment) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 02-1770	View
03.28.2005	MGD	Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Han (Order denying default judgment due to Plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient factual allegations to substantiate section 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(2)(C) claims)	AP 04-06478	View
03.25.2005	JB	In re Kazem (deadline for motion to revoke discharge under § 727(d)(1); filing, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5001(a); proceeding to revoke a discharge should be adversary proceeding, 7001(4); court may construe pleading as complaint.)	BK 03-99076	View
03.23.2005	JEM	In re Project Time & Cost, Inc. Alacrity Services, LLC, which was once owned by Debtor, moved to reopen Debtor’s Chapter 11 case to file “pleadings under seal” in connection with an unfiled motion to clarify meaning of prior Consent Order appointing an Estate Representative under 11 U.S.C. Section 1123(b)(3)(B). That Consent Order required Alacrity to give 60 days’ notice to the Estate Representative before Alacrity could sell, transfer or encumber its assets, while the Estate Representative was pursuing an equity holder of Alacrity to recover a fraudulent transfer. The Court granted the motion to reopen in part but denied the portion seeking to file documents under seal. Alacrity put the cart before the horse in seeking to seal documents before filing the operative motion to seek clarification of the consent order. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 02-83002	View
03.23.2005	MHM	Howse v. Davis (Motion for default judgment by creditor whose claim arises from a malpractice judgment against Debtor, who was Plaintiff's former attorney. Attorney malpractice does not constitute defalcation within the meaning of §523(a)(4)	AP 04-9218	View
03.22.2005	MGD	American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. v. McGarity (In re McGarity) (Plaintiff's renewed motion for default judgment granted after incorporating a more detailed factual basis for establishing a claim of actual fraud under section 523(a)(2)(A))	AP 03-5041	View
03.22.2005	MGD	MicroFinancial, Inc. v. DelPiano (In re DelPiano) (Judgment for fraud claim rendered by United States District Court in Massachusetts satisfies Plaintiff's section 523(a)(2)(A) claim because of collateral estoppel)	AP 04-06127	View
03.18.2005	JEM	Ponder v. Apyron Technologies, Inc. (In re Apyron Technologies, Inc.) In Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a non-core matter, the Court recommended to the U.S. District Court that it enter a judgment in favor of Defendant declaring that Plaintiff had no interest in technology developed while Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6443	View
03.15.2005	JB	Thompson v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc. (In re Thompson) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1602, 1635; on cross motions for summary judgment, Court found assignment of note and security deed on day of closing does not trigger extended three year rescission period of Truth in Lending Act as long as loan proceeds not disbursed within three day rescission period; assignment does not terminate right of rescission under Truth in Lending Act against original lender as matter of law; if at trial there is proof of a violation of Truth in Lending Act, Court will reach issue of whether a rescission remedy can be fashioned against the sole Defendant sued as Plaintiff did not join current holder of note and security deed)	AP 4-9037	View
03.14.2005	MHM	Lewis v. Henry (pro secreditor's motion construed as motion to allow late proof of claim with explanation that claim will be allowed unless Debtor objects)	BK 04-71646	View
03.14.2005	MHM	Citibank v. Kim (Motion for default judgment by creditor whose claim arises from Debtor's use of credit card denied in part)	AP 04-6516	View
03.14.2005	MHM	Chase Manhattan Bank v. Kim (Motion for default judgment by creditor whose claim arises from Debtor's use of credit card denied in part)	AP 04-9166	View
03.11.2005	MHM	n re Boyd (Debtors contracted with special counsel Levinson; Levinson associated Mackie; Debtors signed no agreement directly with Mackie, but Mackie filed the application. Application denied.)	BK 04-70168	View
03.11.2005	MHM	Citibank v. Jo (Motion for default judgment by creditor whose claim arises from Debtor's use of credit card denied)	AP 04-6542	View
03.11.2005	MHM	Citibank v. Jo (Motion for default judgment by creditor whose claim arises from Debtor's use of credit card denied)	AP 04-6542	View
03.09.2005	WHD	Mann v. Bradshaw (denying motion to reconsider order striking answer and entry of default judgment) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1003; docket number 24	View
03.09.2005	MHM	In re Smith (construes pro se creditor's pleading as an incomplete attempt to commence a dischargeability complaint; also briefly explains the effect of a bankruptcy discharge on a secured claim);	BK 04-98519	View
03.08.2005	PWB	John Deere Company v. Roger Lee Fitzsimonds (In re Roger Lee Fitzsimonds and Doris Ellen Fitzsimonds) (Scire Facias to Revive Dormant Judgment. Order granting Plaintiff's motion for Scire Facias and requiring defendant to appear and show cause why a judgment entered in 1992 should not be revived as provided in OCGA 9-12-61. Order directs Plaintiff to arrange for service of the Scire Facias by the Sheriff of the county where defendant resides in the manner set forth by OCGA 9-12-63)	AP. 91-6888, doc. #6	View
03.07.2005	PWB	In re Beverly Brown (Order denying Debtor's motion to dismiss Chapter 7 case. Where "debtor proceeds without legal counsel and later finds out that the bankruptcy filing was a bad choice does not constitute a valid ground for voluntary dismissal of a case where prejudice to other parties will occur." While loss of house may cause hardship to debtor, such hardship is not sufficient to permit dismissal in face of prejudice to creditors. However, this is a factor to consider in administration of the case. Therefore, clerk is directed to issue bar notice so claims can be determined promptly.)	BK 04-98160, doc. # 24;	View
03.04.2005	JEM	Zhosul v. Zhosul (In re Zhosul) A debt arising out of a property settlement in a divorce proceeding was not dischargeable because Debtor failed to prove elements of section 523(a)(15). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-9385	View
03.03.2005	WHD	In re Springer (sustaining Chapter 13 trustee's objection to confirmation and holding that exempt income may, nonetheless, constitute disposable income) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-12747, docket number 35	View
03.02.2005	MGD	Pham v. Georgia Dept. of Revenue (In re Pham) (Debtor's failure to file amended returns after the Internal Revenue Service revised his income upwards, renders his 1996 and 1997 state tax liabilities to be non-dischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(1)(B)(i))	AP 04-06677	View
02.28.2005	JEM	In re Andrew Ross Desmond; Utility does not violate automatic stay by cutting off water where debtor failed to act pursuant to section 368 of the Bankruptcy Code within 20-day grace period after petition date to furnish adequate assurance of payment in the form of a deposit or other security for service after the deadline date. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 05-90125	View
02.24.2005	WHD	In re Warren (denying motion to reopen no-asset Chapter 7 case for purpose of adding omitted creditors) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 01-10232; docket number 42	View
02.17.2005	JEM	In re Christopher S. Wathey and Heather L. Wathey Debtors may not avoid effect of reaffirmation agreement after deadline for rescinding it has passed by seeking to reopen the case and to amend their statement of intentions. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-92456	View
02.17.2005	MHM	Georgia Equipment Co. v. Hassan (sole proprietorship may proceed without an attorney)	AP 04-9205	View
02.15.2005	MGD	Dierkes v. Crawford Orthodontic Care, P.C. (In re Dierkes) (Order holding that dental equipment and furnishings repossessed prepetition were property of the estate and subject to turnover pursuant to section 542. Debtor able to use Chapter 13 plan to facilitate his right of redemption.)	AP 05-06022	View
02.14.2005	WHD	Choi v. Choi (denying defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's 523(a)(5)/(a)(15) complaint) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6048; docket number 42	View
02.11.2005	JEM	In re Rhodes, Inc. For purposes of section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, an obligation to pay rent, taxes or some other expense under an unexpired lease arises at the time that the tenant's liability on that obligation becomes fixed in an amount unalterable by subsequent events, such as the termination of the lease. If section 365(d)(3) does not apply, a landlord is entitled to payment of an administrative expense with respect to stub rent under section 503(b)(l) until rejection of an unexpired lease.	BK 04-78434	View
02.09.2005	MHM	Anderson v. HSN, LP (In re Donovan); (bankruptcy court may hear Ch 7 Trustee's claims on behalf of Subchapter S corporation wholly owned by individual debtor against parties for breach of contract, fraud, et al.)	AP 03-9357	View
02.09.2005	MHM	BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Panjwany (§523(a)(4) defalcation while acting in fiduciary capacity)	AP 03-9348	View
02.09.2005	MHM	Americredit Financial Services v. Smithey (use of deposition transcript in lieu of defendant's live testimony; §523(a)(4) conversion of insurance proceeds)	AP 03-6350	View
02.09.2005	MHM	Welch v. Kentucky Higher Education Authority (enforcement of settlement agreement)	AP 03-6209	View
02.07.2005	WHD	Choi v. Choi (denying motion to compel discovery because movant had not diligently conducted discovery throughout the case and waited until the discovery period was about to expire to seek additional discovery) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6048; docket number 39	View
02.07.2005	WHD	Gordon v. Conkle (denying motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Chapter 7 trustee's fraudulent conveyance action where transferee of property had voluntarily transferred the property back to the debtor, and staying litigation on trustee's objection to debtor's discharge because debtor had converted her case to Chapter 13) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6276; docket number 8;	View
02.04.2005	JB	In re Richard Kenneth Capps (Chapter 7 Debtor’s motion for leave to sell real estate denied. Once Chapter 7 bankruptcy case is filed, all property in which Debtor had an interest becomes property of the estate. Furthermore, automatic stay already lifted for first mortgage holder and any excess funds recovered by mortgagee are to be paid to Chapter 7 Trustee)	BK 04-97732	View
02.04.2005	MGD	In re Parks (Order granting validation of foreclosure sale conducted after Debtor filed motion to reinstate Chapter 13 case, but before no opposition order was submitted)	BK 04-41299	View
02.02.2005	MGD	Ogier v. Riner (In re Riner) (Order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim due to the fact that Plaintiff's complaint sufficiently articulates a potential cause of action under section 523(a)(4))	AP 04-6562	View
02.02.2005	PWB	n re Harold A. Shaw (Order denying Debtor's motion for recusal under 28 USC section 455. Debtor has failed to set forth with particularity any facts or circumstances which evidence bias by the court. Court has displayed no "deep-seated favoritism or antagonism" toward Debtor; adverse rulings do not establish bias for purposes of disqualification.)	BK 03-94997, doc. no. 64	View
02.02.2005	PWB	Stewart v. Lendmark Financial Services, Inc. (In re Stewart) (Service of objection to claim on claimant at address listed on claim but not addressed to person who signed proof of claim is insufficient.)	BK 04-41969, doc. no. 45	View
02.02.2005	PWB	Chase Manhattan Bank USA, NA v. Muok (In re Muok) (On debtor/defendant's motion to dismiss, Order for Plaintiff to show cause why dischargeability complaint should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service of the summons and complaint on the debtor. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 7004(a), plaintiff is directed to show "good cause" or some other basis why court should not dismiss action.)	AP 04-9144 , doc. # 7;	View
02.01.2005	MGD	In re Battle (Order granting out of time extension for pro se debtor to file designated items on appeal, but denying motion to stay judgment pending appeal)	BK 04-98513	View
01.31.2005	WHD	In re Conkle granting, over debtor's objection, application for compensation filed by former Chapter 7 trustee against debtor's Chapter 13 estate NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-66229	View
01.30.2005	REB	Froug v. Froug (In re Froug) (11 USC 105, 362, extension of bar date under 11 USC 523, 727)	BK 04-30508	View
01.28.2005	MHM	Protos v. Silver (Subject matter jurisdiction; core v. noncore) Published	AP 04-6090	View
01.28.2005	MGD	National Service Direct, Inc. v. Anderson (In re National Service Direct, Inc.) Defendant holds valid judgment lien in Plaintiff's personal property located in state of Georgia. Published	AP 04-06479	View
01.27.2005	CRM	In re Kristi E. Taylor. (O.C.G.A.§ 44-13-100(a)(1); 11 U.S.C. § 522; Sustaining Chapter 7 Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Exemption) Published	BK 04-69185	View
01.27.2005	PWB	Parras v. Carter (In re Carter) (Order denying plaintiff's motion to compel post-judgment discovery, motion to revive judgment, motion for contempt, and other motions. Federal Rule 69, made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 7069, which permits post-judgment discovery is inapplicable in this proceeding because the judgment entered by the Bankruptcy Court in 1995 was not a money judgment. The Bankruptcy Court judgment found the state court order of restitution nondischargeable; any issues related to collection of the nondischargeable debt, including post-judgment discovery, should be addressed in proceedings to enforce the state court order in the appropriate nonbankruptcy court.) Published	AP 94-6388	View
01.26.2005	JB	In re James. Insurance company’s motion for relief from stay to file declaratory judgment action in this court against debtor and several non-debtor parties denied as no relief from stay needed to file adversary proceeding in same court where debtor’s bankruptcy case is pending and no relief from stay necessary to file adversary proceeding against non-debtor parties	BK 04-94649	View
01.19.2005	WHD	Clark v. Golloway finding debts owed to debtor's former spouse were nondischargeable under sections 523(a)(5) and 523(a)(15) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1706	View
01.18.2005	PWB	In re Faulknor (Order denying motion to redeem vehicle. Service of motion to redeem, to "Attn: President," without specifically naming the individual, does not comply with the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 7004 and the constitutional requirements of due process.) Published	BK 04-43921	View
01.17.2005	JEM	In re Rita Smith Motion of creditor for order approving reaffirmation agreement with pro se debtor denied where creditor failed to provide copy of contract being reaffirmed and debtor’s schedules showed on their face that she could not afford the payments. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-97665	View
01.13.2005	PWB	In re Alneta L. Stafford (Judgment for Debtor in the amount of $1,825 against her former counsel for monies entrusted to him which were not paid to mortgage company and for attorney's fees incurred by new counsel. Court finds that counsel violated Georgia Rule 1.15(I) by failing to account to client for funds entrusted to him, and that reasonable grounds to believe that counsel also violated Georgia Rule 5.5(a), which prohibits a lawyer from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law; Georgia Rule 5.3 which requires proper supervision of legal assistants; Georgia Rule 3.3(a), which imposes a duty to be candid with the Court; and Georgia Rule 1.1, which requires a lawyer to provide competent representation to his client. Court referred matter to State Bar of Georgia for further investigation and proceedings) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 00-74112	View
01.13.2005	JB	In re Kazem 11 U.S.C. § § 350(b), 727; Fed R. Bankr. P. 7001(4); creditor's motions to revoke discharge and reopen case denied as statutory deadline for filing revocation request had passed; no "cause" to reopen debtor's cases exists where it would serve no purpose; additionally, discharge revocation must be made through an adversary proceeding, not motion; and, Court docket reflects creditor failed to properly serve motions	BK 03-99076	View
01.10.2005	CRM	In re Alberta Diane Johnson, aka Diane Johnson; Denying U.S. Trustee's Motion to Dismiss. Published	BK 03-99063	View
01.10.2005	WHD	Mann v. Bradshaw granting motion for sanctions for failure to comply with Court's order compelling defendant to respond to discovery requests, striking defendant's answer, and entering default judgment against defendant NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1003, docket number 15	View
01.05.2005	JB	In re PAI Enterprises, Inc. Insurance company’s motion for relief from stay to file declaratory judgment action in this court against debtor and several non-debtor parties denied as no relief from stay needed to file adversary proceeding in same court where debtor’s bankruptcy case is pending and no relief from stay necessary to file adversary proceeding against non-debtor parties	BK 04-66948	View
01.05.2005	MGD	Georgia Lottery Corp. v. McKibben (In re McKibben) Order granting summary judgment in favor of Georgia Lottery Corp. holding debt to be nondischargeable pursuant to Section 523(a)(4) Published	AP 04-04037	View
12.22.2004	MGD	Pittman v. Bank One, N.A. (In re Pittman) (Order denying cross motions for summary judgment holding that whether Defendant provided Debtor two copies of the notice detailing the right to rescind as required under TILA is a factual issue to be decided at trial) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-09155	View
12.22.2004	REB	Dacus v. Ga. Dept of Revenue (In re Dacus) (11 USC 523(a)(1)(B), nondischargeability)	AP 04-2058	View
12.20.2004	MGD	Macleod v. First National Bank of Chatsworth (In re Sosebee Freight, Inc.) (Pre-petition transfer of funds determined not to be avoidable as a preference under section 547 due to earmarking doctrine) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-04024	View
12.20.2004	WHD	Callaway v. IRS (denying motion to dismiss complaint) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1705; docket number 17	View
12.16.2004	WHD	Brown v. Woodbury Banking Co. (granting in part motion to amend complaint; denying motion to amend complaint to add claim for violation of the FDCPA because the claim would have been time barred) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-1012; docket number 16	View
12.07.2004	MGD	Brooks et al v. Ellis (In re Ellis) (Chapter 7 debtor lacks standing to assert counterclaim until abandoned by trustee) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-04065	View
12.02.2004	MGD	In re Clansy (order denying attorney's request to withdraw) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-82668	View
11.09.2004	WHD	In re Jeffrey Kele and Joy Elaine Sewell (denying motion to reopen case for purpose of modifying the discharge injunction to allow movant to name debtor as defendant in medical malpractice suit where movant intended to recover any award solely from debtor's employer)	BK 03-10764, docket number 28	View
11.02.2004	JEM	Owens v CitiFinancial Services, Inc. Debtor obtained judgment during Chapter 13 case that determined that mortgage creditor was deemed to be and would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in this case and for all purposes and not entitled to the protections of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). Case was later converted to Chapter 7. Debtor sued creditor to avoid mortgage lien based on earlier judgment. Creditor defaulted. Held: Complaint failed to state a claim for relief because the determination that creditor was unsecured for purposes of section 1322(b)(2) did not affect lien. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6108	View
10.28.2004	JEM	Keith Brown and Victoria Brown Prior to bankruptcy Debtor voluntarily gave a second mortgage to his father to secure a debt. Debtor did not claim an exemption in property, and property was worth no more than total mortgage debt. Trustee subsequently avoided the mortgage as a preference and preserved the lien for the estate. Debtor then amended Schedule C to claim full exemption. Trustee objected. Held: Trustee’s objection granted. Under section 551(g)(1), a debtor may claim exemption in property recovered by the trustee only if the debtor did not voluntarily make the transfer. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-96149	View
10.27.2004	JB	Cobb v. Cobb (In re Cobb) (Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027; former debtor’s notice of removal of former husband’s state court motion alleging certain of debtor’s debts not dischargeable and wrongful prevention of his visitation rights with children remanded and remanded as debtor failed to comply with procedural requisites and state court has concurrent jurisdiction regarding marital debts and particular expertise with regard to visitation rights)	AP 04-6506	View
10.25.2004	MHM	Jones v. Ferdinand (clarification of consent order)	AP 02-9226	View
10.25.2004	MHM	In re Rodgers/In re Dunbar (imposition of sanction requiring attorney to offer to represent a debtor pro bono)	BK 03-90336/03-96395	View
10.22.2004	MHM	In re Cammack (allowance of Chapter 13 case to continue beyond 60 months)	BK 97-70625	View
10.22.2004	MHM	In re Farris (grounds for recusal)	BK 04-95802	View
10.17.2004	WHD	Georgia Lottery Corp. v. Akhawala (In re Akhawala) (granting motion for summary judgment on creditor's section 523(a)(4) claim) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-6079;docket number 17	View
10.15.2004	JB	In re Carolyn Denise Upshur (debtor’s motion to reopen Chapter 7 case and add unadministered, pending, prepetition cause of action granted as otherwise asset remains unadministered in estate, is of potential benefit to creditors, and judicial estoppel argument is not relevant before bankruptcy court);	BK 03-82229	View
10.15.2004	MHM	In re Conley (disbursement of unclaimed funds held Registry of Court)	BK 00-74652	View
10.08.2004	MHM	In re Griffin (Debtor barred from refiling for 5 years.)	BK 0496711	View
10.04.2004	MHM	Gordon v. Marcinek (In re Marcinek) (Close personal friend of Debtor can be “insider” under §101(31))	AP 03-6401	View
10.01.2004	MHM	American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Scott (denial of discharge)	AP 01-6117	View
10.01.2004	MHM	Thurmond v. Copeland (timeliness of objection to exemption after conversion)	BK 03-60407	View
09.30.2004	WHD	McLain v. Brown (In re William McLain) docket number 86; (granting motion for partial summary judgment on Chapter 7 trustee's section 549 claim) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 02-1770	View
09.27.2004	MHM	Anderson v. HSN, LP (In re Donovan) (abstention; intervention)	AP 03-9357	View
09.24.2004	JB	Centex Home Equity Company, LLC v. Hailey (In re Hailey) (Lenders’ motions for relief from automatic stay moot as Debtor has received discharge and Chapter 7 Trustee has filed report that estate has no interest in the properties at issue) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-94413	View
09.24.2004	JEM	PlayNation Play System, Inc. v Howard Defendant falsely stated on his statement of financial affairs that he did not transfer any property outside the ordinary course of business during the one year period preceding the filing of the petition. He knew that statement to be false because he listed the transfer on the work papers provided to him by his bankruptcy attorney. He made the statement with fraudulent intent based on the inferences drawn from his course of conduct. Discharge Denied. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-06101	View
09.23.2004	PWB	In re Harold Dene Amey (Multiple filings; foreclosure; in rem relief; necessity of adversary proceeding for in rem relief against co-debtor) Westlaw cite: In re Amey, 314 B.R. 864 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2004)	BK 04-62641	View
09.13.2004	MHM	In re Living Word Faith Center, Inc (debtor's attorney's application for compensation; quantum meruitcompensation for period prior to filing application for employment)	BK 04-91635	View
09.10.2004	MHM	Silver v. Protos (motion to quash and motion for protective order granted preventing examination of special master)	AP 03-6473	View
09.10.2004	MHM	South Carolina State Credit Union v. Dunbar (granting motion to reimpose automatic stay)	BK 03-96395	View
09.10.2004	MHM	Lockley v. Long (motion for summary judgment granted because debtor failed to present any evidence to support opposition to motion for summary judgment)	AP 03-9230	View
09.08.2004	MHM	Silver v. Protos (state court arbitration award; denial of discharge; §727(a)(2), undisclosed transfer of security interest in debtor’s real estate to debtor’s prepetition nonbankruptcy attorney; §727(a)(3), debtor’s failure to produce records; §727(a)(4), false oath)	AP 03-6473	View
09.04.2004	MHM	Odum v. Vesta Holdings (11 U.S.C. §1305, postpetition claim)	BK 01-65200	View
09.01.2004	JB	In re Hunt (Lenders’ motions for relief from automatic stay moot as Debtor has received discharge and Chapter 7 Trustee has filed report that estate has no interest in the properties at issue)	BK 04-94398	View
08.23.2004	JB	In re Henderson (Debtor’s request to reconsider dismissal of his case denied as he failed to file schedules and a Chapter 13 plan, to appear at the first meeting of creditors, and to respond to the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objections to confirmation or appear at the confirmation hearing; Debtor’s suggestion of a possible Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation does not alter obligations of those filing for bankruptcy)	BK 04-92818	View
08.19.2004	JB	In re Bythwood (Debtor’s case dismissed pursuant to § 109(g)(2) as Debtor had voluntarily dismissed her previous case after lender filed a motion for relief from stay)	BK 04-96156	View
08.18.2004	PWB	Hospitality Ventures/Lavista v. Heartwood 11, LLC et al. (In re Hospitality Ventures/Lavista) (abstention; sec. 505(a); sec. 1334(c)(1). No permissive abstention under 28 usc 1334(c)(1) with regard to 11 USC 505(a) relief if there is no alternative forum to decide the dispute. Section 505(a) does not permit a bankruptcy court to decline to exercise jurisdiction other than under 1334(c)(1)) Westlaw cite: Hospitality Ventures/Lavista v. Heartwood 11, LLC (In re Hospitality Ventures/Lavista), 314 B.R.	AP03-6596	View
08.13.2004	JB	Seamon v. Seamon (In re Seamon) (Debtor’s emergency motion to enjoin foreclosure sale of his house by his brother or, alternatively, to reimpose automatic stay denied as dispossessory proceeding is being litigated in state court; debtor’s schedules show no bankruptcy purpose served in this case; and no legal authority to grant relief sought)	BK 04-68797	View
08.09.2004	JEM	In re Ethel O. Harris An attorney who does not represent debtor in a bankruptcy estate lacks authority to file a motion for approval to represent the debtor in non-bankruptcy matter. Such a motion must be filed by the debtor or the debtor’s bankruptcy attorney. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-94415	View
08.04.2004	JB	Ogier v. Ashraf (In re Ashraf) (Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment as allegations in complaint deemed admitted due to Debtor’s failure to answer or otherwise respond to complaint or to motion for default judgment)	BK 03-77569	View
07.29.2004	WHD	Brown v. Brown (In re Brown) (trial on complaint objecting to dischargeability pursuant to sections 523(a)(5) and (a)(15))	AP 03-1022; docket number 39	View
07.26.2004	WHD	Pony Express Delivery Services, Inc. et al. v. Andreini & Company et al. (In re Pony Express Delivery Services, Inc.) (motion for summary judgment on preferential transfer claim)notice of appeal docketed 8/02/2004. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 02-6276; docket number 33	View
07.22.2004	MHM	Hickman v. Georgia Department of Revenue (state tax lien is not lien that can be avoided under §522(f)) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-93236	View
07.21.2004	MHM	In re Diaz (FRBP 4004(c)(2)), motion to defer entry of discharge) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-92921	View
07.21.2004	MHM	In re Allen (dismissal with one-year bar to refiling) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-94386	View
07.20.2004	JB	Stephens v. Educational Credit Management Corporation (Debtor’s notice of requirement of response to motion to discharge debt improper as motion referenced in notice not filed; discharge of student loan cannot be done by motion; and notice not authorized by court)	BK 98-90875	View
07.16.2004	WHD	In re The New Power Company, New Power Holdings, Inc., and TNPC Holdings, Inc (application for payment of attorney's fees in accordance with section 503(b)(3)(D))	BK 02-10835; docket number 1302	View
07.13.2004	JEM	In re Michael Stephen Gillespie Debtor's law firm sought refund of inadvertent payment of full filing fee after entry of Order granting motion to pay filing fee in installments. Debtor's schedules showed that Debtor had ample funds to pay filing fee in installments. Motion denied, Order authorizing installment payments vacated, and General Order No. 9 suspended so that law firm must file fee application to receive compensation. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-70590	View
06.24.2004	PWB	FDS National Bank v. Mahabub Alam (In re Alam) (Order Denying Motion for Default Judgment, dischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A); 523(a)(2)(C); false representation; actual fraud; credit card; dinial of motion for default judgment)	AP 03-6465	View
06.24.2004	PWB	Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. v. William Arnold Kendrick (In re Kendrick) (Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, dischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A); elements of actual fraud; credit card; admissions under Rule 36; request for attorney's fees and compliance with OCGA13-1-11(a)(3))	AP 03-4030	View
06.22.2004	WHD	In re Greta Carter (motion for reconsideration of order disallowing administrative expense claim for professional compensation) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 00-12200;docket number 93	View
06.17.2004	REB	Woods v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Georgia (In re Woods) (11 USC 506(a)&(d), avoidance of lien (strip off) on wholly unsecured debt in Chapter 7 case) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 04-2010	View
05.24.2004	WHD	In re The New Power Company (docket number 1271)(request for fees for substatial contribution under sections 503(b)(3)(D))	BK 02-10835	View
05.14.2004	JEM	In re Carla Renee Cotton Motion to allow late claim to which no objection had been made denied as unnecessary because claim is deemed allowed notwithstanding it was filed after the bar date and the Court lacks power to declare that it was in fact timely filed. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-60016	View
05.12.2004	JEM	In re Sarah Wideman Motion to dismiss case with prejudice because Debtor missed mortgage payments is not a substitute for a motion for stay relief where Debtor was otherwise funding plan, notwithstanding that Debtor consented to supplemental confirmation order stating that Court may dismiss with prejudice if Debtor fails to cure post-petition default. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-90949	View
05.10.2004	JEM	In re Michael Grier An objection to a Chapter 13 Trustee’s Notice of Intent to Pay Late Filed Claim is not a substitute for objecting to the late claim. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-91308	View
05.10.2004	JEM	In re Lytonia Michelle Watkins Debtor filed two Chapter 13 cases on the same day using two different attorneys, voluntarily dismissed the first case and moved for a refund of the filing fee as a “duplicate case.” Motion denied. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-63419	View
05.10.2004	JEM	In re Physicians Reliance Association, Inc. Unsuccessful bidder for assets of debtor moved for payment of administrative expense labeled an “Unsettlement Fee.” Service of motion defective because movant served attorney for creditor who had not filed notice of appearance. Motion to allow administrative expense under sections 507(a)(1) and 503(b) must be served on creditor pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(6) and (g). NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 93-72201	View
05.10.2004	JB	Elliott v. Griggin (In re Griffin) (evidence that could have been obtained prior to trial does not meet stadard of newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2); when hearing on damages is required following entry of default under Rule 55, party who participates in bench trail without objection waives jury demand)	AP 02-9403	View
05.03.2004	JEM	In re Kimberly Jackson Fee Application of Attorneys for Chapter 13 Debtor denied for failing to prove value of services pursuant to §330. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 01-86978	View
04.28.2004	JB	Crescive Landscape Management, Inc v. PHDC, LLC (In re PHDC, LLC) (appointment of Trustee under 1104(a)(1))	BK 03-93397	View
04.27.2004	PWB	Griggs v. Berke (In re Berke) (denial of motion for default judgement 523(a)(17);523(a)(19))	AP 04-9003	View
04.26.2004	JEM	Smith v. Khalif A prepetition address mentioned in a debtor’s statement of financial affairs, even if valid postpetition, is not and cannot be “the address shown in the . . . statement of affairs” to which FRBP 7004(b)(9) refers. A bare allegation that reliance was justifiable in a complaint seeking to declare a debt nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) is a conclusion of law and not admitted by a defendant’s failure to respond.	AP 03-9296	View
04.21.2004	MGD	In re Neary (GA homestead exemption with separated, non-resident spouse)	BK 03-97808	View
04.07.2004	JB	In re Northside Bishop Trust (trust is an artificial entity and must be represented by counsel)	BK 04-90152	View
04.02.2004	WHD	In re Rochester (308 B.R.596(Bankr N.D. Ga. 2004));(motionj to repoen for purpose of adding an undisclosed cause of action and the impact of judicial estoppel)	BK 01-63424	View
04.01.2004	JEM	In re Griffin Effective service by mail on joint debtors pursuant to FRBP 7004(b)(9) requires that each debtor receive a separate envelope containing the item being served. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-65405	View
03.30.2004	MHM	Marzullo v. Smith (In re Smith) (application of default judgment to collaterally estop dischargeability litigation; application of NY law regarding collateral estoppel effect of default judgment) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-9085	View
03.30.2004	MHM	In re Bryan (professional employed under §327 is entitled to interest on fees and expenses from and after the date of the award.) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 98-81514	View
03.29.2004	MHM	Chaney v. Grant (In re Chaney) (§1305 postpetition claim allowed) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 99-74135	View
03.25.2004	MHM	Chambers v. Silliman (In re Bryan) (Trustee has absolute immunity as Trustee and absolute privilege under state law to report suspicion of unlicensed practice of law to the state bar)	AP 03-9128	View
03.25.2004	REB	In re FTANDD International, LTD; In re Jerry Toney and Verla Toney, & In re Jerry Toney (11 USC 1122 objection to disclosure statement, classification of unsecured deficiency claim)	BK G00-22033, BK G01-20190 BK G01-20199 (consolidated cases)	View
03.19.2004	JEM	In re Centennial Healthcare Corp. Court lacks power to extend time to make election of treatment under Chapter 11 Plan under FRBP 3018. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 02-74974	View
03.19.2004	JEM	In re Kilgore A joint debtor may not be added by an amendment to the petition. 11 U.S.C. §§ 301 and 302. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-90855	View
03.18.2004	JEM	In re Coastal Care Resources, LLC Claim of guarantor is one for contribution under 11 U.S.C § 502(e)(1)(B) and hence must be disallowed. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 00-71661	View
03.16.2004	MHM	In re Mason (reopening case to permit filing of reaffirmation agreement “made” before the discharge was entered) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-71931	View
03.16.2004	JEM	Tompkins & Assocs. v. Mack ( In re Mack) FRBP 7004(e) by its terms requires that summons be served within ten days of issuance. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-9208	View
03.15.2004	MHM	Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. V. Robinson (motion to reopen and vacate dismissal denied because debtor ineligible; bad faith serial filing) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-90097	View
03.05.2004	MHM	In re Coan (debtor’s motion to recuse denied) NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-91403	View
03.03.2004	PWB	Ray McQuaig, Inc. v. John Howard Groth and General Glass Company (In re John Howard Groth) (discretionary abstention under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(1))	AP 01-75680	View
02.20.2004	MHM	Ogier v. Nationsbank(Trimble House Corporation) (Reconsideration, Bankruptcy Rules 9023-9024)	AP 01-6103	View
02.20.2004	WHD	F & M Bank and Trust Company v. Fuller (In re Fuller) (Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) dischargeability)	AP 02-1720	View
02.20.2004	MHM	Midland Mortgage Co. v. Galvan (Dead Debtor)	BK 04-90190	View
02.17.2004	PWB	In re Cotton (11 U.S.C 544(a)(3) strong-arm power and equitqable interest in property)	BK 01-66915	View
02.17.2004	JEM	Rollins v. Dye (In re Costal Care Resources, L.L.C) Motion for sanctions against pro se plaintiff granted pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9011 because complaint had no factual or legal basis, was therefore frivolous and plaintiff knew it. Sanctions imposed totaled $23,798.00 NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-9288	View
02.12.2004	JEM	In re Hoff Debtor's application to employ his counsel to prosecute pending lawsuit constituiting property of Chapter 7 estate under section 541 denied. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 03-80092	View
02.03.2004	JEM	Ragsdale, as Trustee v Giamboi ( In re Sands) Plaintiff's motion for default judgment awarding attorney's fees under O.C.G.A § 13-6-1 denied for lack of proper factual allegations, assuming section was even applicable. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-9331	View
02.02.2004	MHM	Crisci v. Barnett (Extension of Time, Rules 4004 &4007)	BK 03-61270	View
02.02.2004	MHM	Adams v. First Union (28 U.S.C §157, subject matter jurisdiction, core and non-core jurisdiction)	AP 03-6067	View
01.29.2004	MHM	In re Castellana (11 U.S. C. §350(b), reopening to add creditors unnecessary)	BK 03-95436	View
01.28.2004	REB	Albert F. Nasuti vs. Wayne D. Jordan, Barbara Ann Jordan, First Horizon Home Loan Corp d/b/a Equibanc Mortgage Corp and Bank One, NA, (DENYING Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Trustee)	AP 02-3052	View
01.28.2004	PWB	In re Carl A. Lawson (possible sanctions for abusive, serial filings and opportunity to request sanctions.)	BK 03-81011, BK 03-82997	View
01.24.2004	CRM	Eastern Diversified Distributors, Inc v. Matus (In re Matus) (Sections 727(a)(2), (a)(4)(A), (a)(4)(D); denial of discharge based on the fraudulent transfer of property and false oaths, but not on the withholding of information from an officer of the estate)	AP 02-9303	View
01.20.2004	MHM	In re Cheathem (11 U.S.C.§350(b) reopening, notice of rescheduled §341 meeting)	BK 02-99116	View
01.20.2004	MHM	Thompson v. Safadi (Bankruptcy Rule 9006, extension of time, excusable neglect)	AP 01-6096	View
01.16.2004	MHM	Anderson v. Slaughter (§544, repeal of Georgia fraudulent conveyance statute, AP stayed until issue before 11th Circuit is resolved, other counts not stayed)	AP 03-9282	View
01.16.2004	JEM	In re Robinson-Jones Debtor was ineligible to be a debtor under section 109(g); the Court sua sponte dismissed the case and held that any foreclosure occurring after the petition was filed was valid to the extent valid under state law. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	BK 04-90092	View
01.15.2004	SWC	Schupp v. Bearson (In re Schupp) (11 U.S.C 522(f), exemption and lien avoidance)	BK 03-97887	View
01.15.2004	JEM	Dye v. U.S. Bank & Trust, N.A. (In re Coastal Care Resources, LLC) Defendant's motion to dismiss on res judicata (claim preclusion) grounds granted. NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION	AP 03-9288	View
01.13.2004	JB	Conerton v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (In re: Conerton) (11 U.S.C. 522(f)(1)(B) tool of the trade and lien avoidance)	BK 03-62155	View