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 P. Smith

The debtor filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint to dischargeability because the complaint was filed after the bar date. The plaintiff was not initially listed on the bankruptcy schedules and first knew about the bankruptcy just four days prior to the bar date under Rule 4007(c). The court held that equitable tolling and 11 USC § 523(a)(3)(B) allowed the plaintiff's motion to extend the bar date so that the plaintiff's complaint would be deemed to have been timely filed.

The Chapter 13 trustee filed an adversary proceeding to avoid as a preferential transfer the perfection of the creditor's security interest on the debtor's car. The creditor contends that res judicata barred the action because it was filed after confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The court held that the action was barred because the trustee knew about the defect in perfection prior to confirmation and that the plan treated the creditor's claim as a secured claim.

The debtor's proposed Chapter 13 plan contained "special provisions" which imposed affirmation duties with respect to payments received by and reporting requirements of the creditor holding the security deed on the debtor's residence. The creditor objected to confirmation of the plan contending that the "special provisions" violated the antimodification provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). The court agreed and disapproved all but one of the "special provisions."

The debtor pledged his truck to a pawnbroker. The debtor did not cure his default within the applicable time, and the truck was automatically forfeited to the pawnbroker. The debtor filed a Chapter 13 case and proposed to pay the pawnbroker as a secured claim. The pawnbroker filed a proof of claim and received preconfirmation adequate protection payments. When the debtor defaulted on his plan payments, his case was dismissed and the pawnbroker repossessed the truck. The debtor filed a second Chapter 13 case and contented that the pawnbroker had waived its ownership of the truck by filing a proof of claim in the first case and accepting adequate protection payments. The court held that under 11 USC § 349, dismissal of the first case returned the parties to the positions as they existed at the time of the filing and that the pawnbroker was the owner of the truck. The court denied the debtor's motion for turnover of the truck.

Judge John T. Laney, III

A Chapter 7 Debtor had a 1/5 interest in a vested remainder in real estate, and the Trustee moved the Court to close the case while still retaining jurisdiction over the remainder interest so that the Trustee could administer the asset when the interest became a fee simple. Assuming without deciding that the Court indeed has the power to close a case and retain jurisdiction over a remainder interest, the Court held that the Trustee did not meet its burden in showing that the benefits in retaining jurisdiction over this particular asset overcame the burdens.

The Court granted the Debtor's three objections to discharge against the same creditor when the creditor could not establish a chain of assignment for its claims. The Court discussed the basic federal rule that in bankruptcy, state law governs the substance of claims; the Court also examined Georgia state law cases illustrating the proper way to assign a claim.

The Court granted the Debtors' motion to voluntarily dismiss their Chapter 7 case after the Court determined the Debtors had not satisfied a two-pronged test: (1) Whether the Debtor can show cause to dismiss and (2) If the Debtor does show cause, whether the dismissal would prejudice creditors. The second prong was examined under a factors test.

Judge James D. Walker Jr. (Retired)

Rescission of an erroneously filed cancellation of security deed does not effect a transfer of an interest of debtor in property, and therefore is not a preference. Cancellation of a security deed does not, without payment of the underlying debt, remove the lien. Consequently, rescission of the cancellation does not serve to reinstate the lien.

When only a portion of a judgment debt is nondischargeable, any prepetition partial payments on the debt that are not allocated by the parties shall be applied first to accrued interest, then to attorney fees, then to damages.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment on preference and fraudulent conveyance claims was denied because material facts were in dispute regarding the scope of a prior settlement agreement, the insider status of Defendant, and the value of services provided by Defendant.

Pages