Creditor who leased a truck to the debtor sought stay relief on the ground his interest was not adequately protected. The Court agreed because the debtor could not meet the requirements for assuming the lease. Specifically the debtor was unable to cure his nonmonetary defaults.
Opinions
The Middle District of Georgia offers opinions in PDF format, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
Please note: These opinions are not a complete inventory of all judges' decisions and are not documents of record. Official court records are available at the clerk's office.
Judge James D. Walker Jr. (Retired)
Debtor and Ingram Equipment sold truck outfitted with dump body and knuckle boom loader to City of Madison. The Court held that Debtor had no interest in the amount of the sales price attributable to the dump body and loader; thus, the funds must be turned over to Ingram.
Creditor’s proof of claim based on tort and contract damages would not be enforceable under state law, and thus was disallowed by the Court. The claim arose from a contract to perform automotive repairs, which did not give rise to an independent duty such that a tort action could be maintained. Furthermore, the terms of the agreement between the parties were so uncertain as to render the contract unenforceable.
After debtor sold creditor’s collateral out of trust, creditor sought determination of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(6). Under § 523(a)(2)(A) the creditor could not prove a false representation by imputing the fraud of one corporate principal to another, nor could the creditor prove justifiable reliance when it failed to follow its procedures for monitoring collateral. Similarly, under § 523(a)(6), the creditor could not show willful and malicious injury when the debtor was current on loan payments and creditor failed to monitor its collateral. However, creditor proved elements of § 523(a)(2)(B), and debtor could not escape liability under that section by choosing to remain willfully ignorant of his company’s financial situation.
Robert F. Hershner, Jr. (Retired)
Creditors failed to file proofs of claim as provided in settlement agreement. Chapter 7 Trustee and Debtor argued that claims should be disallowed. The Court held that appropriate remedy for breach of settlement agreement was monetary damages resulting from the breach.
Tucker filed a medical malpractice action in state court against the debtor for the alleged wrongful death of Tucker's daughter. The Court granted Tucker relief from the discharge injunction, 11 U.S.C.A. section 524, to proceed with the state court litigation to establish, if she can, debtor's liability and to proceed against the Debtor's liability insurer if the debtor is found liable in the state court litigation.
The confirmed Chapter 13 plan provided that the creditor's claim would "be paid 100%." The creditor filed its proof of claim after the bar date. The Court held that the creditor's claim was disallowed for purposes of distribution even though the confirmed plan provides for payment on the claim. The Court noted, however, that disallowance of a claim and nondischargeability are separate issues.
A complaint was filed to deny the debtor's discharge and to determine that the debtor's obligations were nondischargeable. Some four years later, the Chapter 7 trustee filed a motion to compromise. The compromise would require that the Chapter 7 debtor pay a total of $45,000 and the Chapter 7 trustee would dismiss with prejudice the adversary proceeding. One creditor objected to the compromise, contending that the debtor had committed fraud and was "buying a discharge." The Court, after considering the factors set forth by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, approved the compromise.
Hester contended that the debtor's obligations arising from their divorce were nondischargeable. The Court held that the obligations were dischargeable under 11 U.S.C.A. section 523(a)(15) because the debtor did not have the ability to pay the obligations. The Court held that the debtor's agreement not to list her divorce obligations on a bankruptcy petition was not enforceable. The Court further held that the debtor's agreement that the obligations would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy was not dispositive of the issue under section 523(a)(15) under the facts of this adversary proceeding.
Judge John T. Laney, III
The Court held trial on Sarah P. McGinnis’ ("Plaintiff") Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of Student Loan Debt against Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency ("Defendant"). The Court, analyzing "undue hardship" under the Brunner test in view of Education Credit Management Corp. v. Carter (In re Carter), 279 B.R. 872 (M.D. Ga. 2002), held Plaintiff’s debt to be dischargeable as an undue hardship. The Court cited Plaintiff’s short-term and long-term financial difficulties due to "a total foreclosure of job prospects in her area of training," as well as her good faith effort towards repayment, as reasons for holding that Plaintiff would be subject to an undue hardship if she were forced to repay her student loans.