The creditor filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the case. The only issue addressed at the hearing was whether the case would be dismissed with prejudice. The Court found that the Debtors continually failed to comply with the Court’s orders on Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examinations. The Court found the Debtors’ conduct warranted a 36-month bar from filing a bankruptcy case for the husband-debtor and a 12-month bar for the wife-debtor.
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 John T. Laney, III
The issue addressed in this opinion is whether the Plaintiff, Wells Fargo, has standing to bring an action to deny the dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) premised on actual fraud by the Debtor-Defendant in transactions with Wachovia, the predecessor bank in the merger between it and Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo has standing to bring such an action because Wells Fargo acquired the right to prosecute such a claim by virtue of its merger with Wachovia.
Motion to avoid judicial lien granted on grounds of exemption impairment. The issue before the Court was whether § 522(f) allows a debtor to avoid a postpetition judicial lien obtained prior to conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 for a deficiency on a postpetition, preconversion debt. Pursuant to § 348(d), a judicial lien must be treated for the purpose of § 522(f) as if it arose prepetition. Because the Creditor’s judicial lien impaired the Debtor’s claim of exemptions, the lien is avoided.In
Creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay was denied. Debtor’s right to redeem the vehicle under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-403(b)(1) was property of the bankruptcy estate, and it did not expire at the end of the sixty days provided by 11 U.S.C. § 108(b). Debtor also was in possession of the vehicle at the time of the petition. Debtor’s confirmed plan provided for Creditor’s secured claim. Creditor failed to object to Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan prior to confirmation. The doctrine of res judicata barred Creditor from objecting to the plan postconfirmation.
Creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay was denied. Debtor’s right to redeem the vehicle under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-403(b)(1) was property of the bankruptcy estate, and it did not expire at the end of the sixty days provided by 11 U.S.C. § 108(b). Debtor also was in possession of the vehicle at the time of the petition. Debtor’s confirmed plan provided for Creditor’s secured claim. Creditor failed to object to Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan prior to confirmation. The doctrine of res judicata barred Creditor from objecting to the plan postconfirmation.
No extreme circumstances (bad faith) exception present in § 1112 to Debtor's right to convert from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, and, even if Debtor engaged in serious preconversion misconduct, such misconduct not sufficient to prevent conversion under Court's equitable powers where conversion not prejudicial to creditors or abuse of process.
The matter came before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The motion sought dismissal of the Trustee’s complaint, whereby the Trustee brought various preference and fraudulent transfer claims. Defendants argued that dismissal was appropriate because the Trustee failed to adequately plead the factual allegations required to make out each of the claims listed in the complaint. According to Defendants, after stripping away the bare legal conclusions, the remaining allegations were insufficient to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court granted the motion as to the Trustee’s 11 U.S.C. § 548 claims, finding that the transfer at issue occurred outside the statutory reach back period. Similarly, the Court granted the motion as to Trustee’s 11 U.S.C. § 544 and O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et seq., again finding the transfers at issue occurred outside the applicable reach back period. The Court denied the motion as the Trustee’s remaining claims.
The matter came before the Court on Motions for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) filed by defendants McCalla Raymer, LLC (“McCalla”), SunTrust Bank and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (collectively “SunTrust”). The Complaint sought recovery for damages stemming from a botched 2010 foreclosure sale. After hearing oral argument on the motions the Court decided to grant the Defendants’ Motions as to: Count 3 – Judicial Estoppel; Count 4 – Equitable Subordination; Count 6 – Violation of Automatic Stay; Count 7(A)(3) – Fraud; Count 7(B) – Violation of Fair Debt Collections Practices Act; and Count 8 – Conversion. The Court denied Defendants’ Motions as to: Count 7(A)(1) – Wrongful foreclosure; Count 7(A)(2) – Tortious interference with property rights; and Count 9 – State law attorney fees under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11.
This matter came before the Court on Debtor, FMB Bancshares, Inc.’s, Motion to Dismiss the Involuntary Chapter 7 Petition filed by Trapeza CDO XII, LTD. FMB sought to have the Involuntary Petition dismissed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 303 and 11 U.S.C. § 305. FMB argued that Tapeza was not a proper creditor under § 303 because FMB’s liability to Trapeza was “contingent,” and that Trapeza did not have standing under the contractual documents to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition. Additionally, FMB argued that the court should exercise discretionary abstention pursuant to § 305 because bankruptcy was not in the best interest of the debtor and creditors. The Court did not agree. The Court held that: (1) Trapeza had standing under the contractual documents to file the involuntary petition; (2) Trapeza was a proper creditor under § 303 because it is the holder of a claim that is not contingent as to liability or the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount; and (3) Abstention under § 305 was not proper. Accordingly, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss.
The Court granted the Trustee’s Motion for Summary Judgment to set aside certain fraudulent transfers under O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70, et seq., as made applicable to bankruptcy cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544. The Court held that the doctrine of judicial estoppel barred the Debtor and the Defendant from claiming the transfers were merely returning the property to the Defendant, and that the Defendant had always been the rightful owner of the property. The Court also found that the Trustee established all the elements of a fraudulent transfer by showing that the Debtor did not receive a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfers and the Debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the transfers.