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.

Creditor sought to dismiss Debtor’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim for failure to state a claim on the ground that Debtor failed to allege an injury to a consumer. Court denied dismissal, concluding that Georgia’s UDTPA does not require an injury to a consumer.

Debtor’s sixth bankruptcy filing in 18-month period was dismissed for being filed in bad faith. Each previous case was dismissed for various reasons, including failure to pay filing fee, failure to file schedules, failure to file a plan, and failure to appear at the § 341(a) meeting of creditors. The Court barred debtor from filing for bankruptcy for 36 months.

The Court rejected Georgia’s assertion of sovereign immunity in a dischargeability proceeding on the basis that states surrendered their sovereign immunity with respect to bankruptcy when they ratified the Constitution.

The debtor owed a substantial federal income tax obligation. The IRS refused to receive and consider his offer-in-compromise during the pendency of his chapter 11 case. The Court held that the IRS's refusal was not prohibited by the anti-discrimination provisions of 11 U.S.C.A. § 525(a). The Court, however, held that it could, under 11 U.S.C.A. § 105(a), order the IRS to receive and consider an offer-in-compromise. The Court stated that the IRS's policy not to participate in the offer-in-compromise procedure while a taxpayer is in bankruptcy frustrates the basic principles of the Bankruptcy Code and I.R.C. § 7122.

Debtor sought relief for creditor’s failure to disclose that it would seek payment of attorney fees incurred between the date of filing and the date of confirmation. The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because the creditor had not yet demanded payment of more than the amount actually disclosed on the proof of claim.

The fact that Debtor remedied the financial problems that led to dismissal of her Chapter 13 case did not warrant reinstatement of her case.

The chapter 11 debtor purchased real estate from the creditor. The creditor received cash and some shares of stock that the debtor owned in WorldCom, Inc. The debtor signed a written guarantee secured by a deed to secure debt that the stock would double in value within three years. The stock failed to double in value and the debtor was unable to perform under his guarantee. The debtor urged the Court to set aside as fraudulent conveyances the written guarantee and the deed to secure debt. The Court concluded that the sale was an arms length transaction and that the debtor was not insolvent at the time of the sale. The Court held that the transfer was not a fraudulent conveyance.

The debtor owned a small store that sold lottery tickets. The debtor failed to deposit certain proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets into a special bank account. The Court held that this failure was a "defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity" under 11 U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(4).

Debtor’s student loans were discharged in full because they created an undue hardship. Debtor’s refusal to participate in William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program’s income contingent repayment plan did not preclude a finding that Debtor had made a good faith effort to repay his loans.

Judge John T. Laney, III

The Court held a hearing on cross-motions to enforce a settlement agreement. SGE Mortgage Funding Corp. ("Plaintiff") and Accent Mortgage Services, Inc. ("Defendant") filed the motions after a dispute arose over the terms of the settlement agreement. The Court held in favor of Plaintiff, stating that Defendant’s CEO was "sophisticated in business matters" and Defendant’s counsel present when the CEO signed an amendment to the settlement agreement which confirmed Defendant’s liabilities under the settlement agreement. Therefore, Defendant was liable for the amount remaining due to Plaintiff under the settlement agreement, plus ad valorem taxes paid by Plaintiff at a real estate closing.