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)

Discharge of Debtor's half-million dollar tax liability to the Internal Revenue Service is denied. In refusing to allow an IRS officer to enter his residence to inventory and seize his personal property in satisfaction of Debtor's tax arrearage, Debtor's conduct was an "affirmative act," as contemplated in In re Griffith, 206 F.3d 1389 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc), resulting in denial of Debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(1)(C).

Circumstances did not indicate the creation of certain oral partnership contracts between Plaintiff-Debtor and creditor defendants.

Though 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(3) limits the amount of an ad valorem tax claimant's claim to the value of the estate's interest in the property against which the ad valorem tax was assessed, Trustee may not use Section 502(b)(3) to avoid the tax claimant's security interest created by a tax lien perfected more than 90 days prior to Debtor's petition.

Question as to whether Debtor "knowingly or fraudulently" omitted items from his schedules, and is thus subject to having his discharge denied for making a false oath pursuant to Section 727(a)(4)(A) for making a false oath or account, is ultimately turns on the credibility of the Debtor, and is accordingly a question for the finder of fact; value of property that Debtor alleges is irrelevant to determination of the property's materiality to the estate for purposes of denying discharge pursuant to Section 727(a)(4)(A).

Judge John T. Laney, III

Section 1322(c)(2) allows certain short-term mortgages, which would otherwise be covered by the section 1322(b)(2) prohibition of modification, to be crammed down to value and paid at a market rate of interest.

In this chapter 12 case, the court ruled that the creditor did not carry its burden of proof to establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), (4), or (6) of the Code. The court also ruled that language in a consent order, which allowed Debtor's late-filed answer to the counterclaim, did not entitle the creditor to a default judgment, and that collateral estoppel did not apply to bar Debtor from contesting the nondischargeability complaint.

Robert F. Hershner, Jr. (Retired)

Creditor filed, after the bar date, a motion to amend its complaint objecting to discharge and to determine dischargeability of debt. The Court allowed the creditor to assert additional factual allegations in support of the same causes of action asserted in the original complaint. The Court did not allow the creditor to add a new cause of action by asserting additional facts not set forth in the original complaint.

Debtor's obligation to hold former spouse harmless on certain credit card debts was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(15).

Confirmed Chapter 13 plan provided that the debtors would make payments on their leased truck outside of the plan. The Court held that the debtors had not assumed the lease. The debtors could modify their confirmed plan to surrender the truck and treat the deficiency under the lease as a general unsecured claim

Debtor failed to appear at state court divorce hearing. State court awarded ex-spouse $652,000 as maintenance in gross. The bankruptcy court held that this debt was in the nature of support and nondischargeable in bankruptcy.