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

In re Smith (05-60736) 2006-05-16

Debtors filed motion to avoid judicial lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1), which attached to Debtors’ real property. The judicial lien creditor objected to avoidance of her lien. The real property of Debtors was encumbered by the following liens, in order of stipulated priority: (1) a first mortgage in the scheduled amount of $35,000.00; (2) the judicial lien in the scheduled amount of $27,394.36; and (3) a second mortgage in the scheduled amount of $155,521.85. The claimed current market value of Debtors’ interest in the property without deductions for secured claims or exemptions was $187,455.00. Debtors had claimed no exemption in their real property by the time this opinion was issued. The Court assumes that Debtors reasoned no exemption should be claimed being as there was no equity in the property.

Literally applying the arithmetic formula set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A), the Court concluded that the judicial lien in question would in fact impair an exemption claimed by Debtors if an exemption should be claimed in the future and allowed. As such, should said exemption be claimed, then the judicial lien shall be avoided in its entirety in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). Further, should an exemption be claimed and the judicial lien avoided, then the priority position of the judicial lien shall be preserved for the benefit of Debtors’ exemption in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 522(i).

In re Ayers Aviation Holdings, Inc. (00-11881, Adv. No. 01-01003) 2006-03-13

The case was remanded to this Court from the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, The Honorable W. Louis Sands, Chief Judge, for the sole purpose of determining the following two issues:  (1) Whether Ayres Aviation Holdings, Inc. (“Debtor”) properly raised the legal issue of whether it was a “buyer in ordinary course of business”; and (2) Whether Ayres Aviation Holdings, Inc. was in fact a “buyer in ordinary course of business” of General Electric engine 998.

The Court first held that Debtor properly raised the issue of whether Ayres Aviation Holdings, Inc. was a “buyer in ordinary course of business. The Court relied on the admission of General Electric that Debtor had properly raised the issue and upon the record of the hearing to reach its conclusion.

The Court next held that Debtor was not a “buyer in ordinary course of business,” as defined in O.C.G.A. § 11-1-201(9), of General Electric engine 998 so as to extinguish the ownership rights of General Electric in the engine. The Court looked to the last sentence of the O.C.G.A. § 11/1/201(9) definition and to the interpretation of that Section by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Sterling National Bank & Trust Co. of New York v. Southwire Co., 713 F.2d 684 (11th Cir. 1983). These authorities were considered with the testimony of former principal of Debtor, Fred P. Ayres, that Debtor took the L610 aircraft and its two General Electric engines (including engine 998) in exchange for the forgiveness of a money debt arising from the transfer of avionics from Debtor to LET, a.s.

In re Huff (04-40055) 2005-10-05

Chapter 13 debtor filed Motion to Substitute Collateral following the post-confirmation, total destruction of his 1998 Grand Prix automobile. The destroyed automobile was jointly titled in the names of Debtor and his wife. Debtor’s wife, not the Debtor, was named as “insured” on the insurance policy covering the automobile. AmeriCredit Financial, holder of the priority security interest in the destroyed automobile, was named as “loss payee” in the insurance policy covering the automobile. Debtor, via his motion, requested that he be permitted to use the proceeds from the insurance policy to purchase a replacement vehicle and to have that vehicle substituted for the destroyed collateral of AmeriCredit. AmeriCredit objected, arguing that as “loss payee,” it was entitled to the insurance proceeds. The Court denied Debtor’s motion and held that AmeriCredit was entitled to the insurance proceeds to the extent of the balance owed by Debtor on AmeriCredit’s confirmed Chapter 13 claim. The insurance proceeds, in fact, did not exceed the balance owed on AmeriCredit’s confirmed Chapter 13 claim. The Court’s holding follows the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Stevens (In re Stevens), 130 F.3d 1027 (11th Cir. 1997). This Court cautioned in its opinion that its holding is limited to the facts of this case and that the outcome could differ in cases where the collateral at issue has not revested in the debtor (either because of pre-confirmation destruction or because of a provision in the Chapter 13 Plan) by the time the collateral is destroyed.

In re Diaz (04-40564) 2005-08-30

Plaintiffs filed an Adversary Proceeding against Ms. Mock. Ms. Mock had hired National Child Support to collect back child support owed on a judgment. National Child Support hired an attorney to represent Ms. Mock, but there was a miscommunication as to whom the attorney represented. As a result, the attorney filed a response in the name of National Child support only. A default judgment was entered against Ms. Mock. Ms. Mock filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The "excusable neglect" standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) governs whether a default judgment should be set aside. In this case, the misunderstanding of the attorney for Ms. Mock falls within the parameters of "excusable neglect." Therefore, the default judgment was set aside.

In re Justice (Case No. 04-12768, A.P. No. 05-01010) 2005-08-04

The Plaintiff’s filed a complaint against the Debtor/Defendant alleging the conversion of property used as collateral for a security agreement. The Debtor/Defendant failed to answer the complaint due to a clerical mistake. A clerk’s entry of default was entered in accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055(a). Less than a week later, the Debtor/Defendant filed a motion to open the default, as well as a late filed answer to the complaint. The "good cause" standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) governs whether a clerk’s entry of default should be set aside. The four factor test is (1) whether the defaulting party took prompt action to vacate the default; (2) whether the defaulting party provides a plausible excuse for the default; (3) whether the defaulting party presents a meritorious defense; and (4) whether the party not in default will be prejudiced if the default is set aside. Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Sanyo Electric, Inc., 33 B.R. 996, 1001 (N.D. Ga. 1983), aff’d, 742 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1984). In this case, the Debtor/Defendant failed to show a meritorious defense. Therefore, the entry of default was granted as to liability.

In re Pickett (04-42768) 2005-07-15

(Also: Bruce, Case No. 04-42805; McRae, Case No. 04-42887; Cook, Case No. 04-42810; LaGrand, Case No. 04-42787; Cooper, Case No. 04-42754; Burrell, Case No. 04-42793; Gilboy, Case No. 04-42888; Skinner, Case No. 04-43011; Kirkland, Case No. 05-40241; Voss, Case No. 05-40018; Cochran, Case No. 05-40483; Carr, Case No. 05-40559 - July 15, 2005) - The United States Trustee brought this motion because the Debtors are residents of Alabama. The Debtors opposed the motion and argued that the U.S. Trustee’s motions were untimely. The court did not adopt a bright-line rule that motions brought sixty days after filing are untimely. To determine whether a motion is timely, the court must look to the facts and circumstances of each case. The court found that the motions in the majority of the cases were untimely under the Advisory Committee Notes, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014(a) because too much had transpired when the motions were brought. The court found two of the motions were timely because "the first major motion[s] were not yet decided before the motion[s] were filed." In re 1606 New Hampshire Avenue Associates., 85 B.R. 298, 305 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988).

In re Miles (04-42238) 2005-06-24

The United States Trustee brought this motion because the Debtors are residents of Alabama. The Debtors opposed the motion and argued that the U.S. Trustee program is unconstitutional because it does not apply in all fifty states and is therefore not a uniform law respecting bankruptcy. The Federal Courts Improvement Act allowed Alabama and North Carolina to opt out of the U.S. Trustee Program. The court determined that the debtors did not meet the heavy burden to invalidate the Act. Further, the Debtors did not show they would be harmed by having their case administered under the Bankruptcy Administrator Program rather than the U.S. Trustee Program, and therefore lacked standing to challenge the Act.

In re Farmer (98-71322) 2005-04-18

The Court held a hearing on the Movants’ Motion to Reopen the case in order to contest the prior re-opening and move to strike the amended schedules. The Farmers had completed payments on their plan when they were involved in an automobile accident. They did not immediately amend their schedules to reflect the potential cause of action. After the case was closed, the Farmers reopened the case and added the lawsuit to their schedules. The Movants, the defendants in the personal injury lawsuit, asserted judicially estoppel. The Court found that judicial estoppel did not apply because the Farmers never asserted inconsistent positions and because the Farmers’ plan was complete at the time of the injury. In addition, the cause of action was not property of the estate under Telfair v. First Union Mortgage Corp., 216 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) and 11 U.S.C. §1329(a), because cause of action arose after the confirmation and completion of the plan.

In re Jordan (04-60215) 2005-03-25

Creditor, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., objected to the confirmation hearing in the Jordan case because the Debtor was modifying the value of property in the plan. Wells Fargo argued that the property at issue was the Debtor’s principal residence and thus could not be modified under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), and that the Debtor’s plan was not filed in good faith. The court held that the date for deciding whether a creditor qualifies for section 1322(b)(2) protection is at the time of filing, not when the obligation arose. Because the Debtor had moved at the time of filing, the property was not his principal residence. However, the court denied confirmation because the plan was not filed in good faith. The property which the Debtor was attempting to cram down was not necessary for his maintenance or support. Rather, the Debtor’s son, who was neither a debtor nor a dependant, was living on the property and made the Trustee payments.

In re Miles (04-42238) 2005-02-22

The United States Trustee brought this motion because the Debtors are residents of Alabama. The Debtors opposed the motion under three arguments: (1) this court should reconsider its decision in In re Swinney, 300 B.R. 388 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2003); aff’d, Swinney v. Turner, 309 B.R. 638 (M.D. Ga. 2004); dismissed as a nonfinal order, Swinney v. U.S. Trustee, No. 04-12639-FF (11th Cir. Aug. 11, 2004); (2) the United States Trustee was not a party in interest with standing to file a motion to dismiss or transfer due to improper venue; (3) the United States trustee program is unconstitutional because it does not apply in all fifty states and is therefore not a uniform law respecting bankruptcy. The constitutional issue was reserved. The court adhered to its decision in Swinney. The court then determined that the United States Trustee did have standing to bring this motion under 11 U.S.C. § 307 and is able to bring such a motion under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014(a)(2).

Pages