Debtor obtained an order from the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia to conduct an examination of a nondebtor party pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004. The nondebtor party moved to quash the subpoena asserting that the proper court to issue the subpoena was the court for the district in which the Rule 2004 examination was to take place. Denying the motion, the court held that the proper court to issue such subpoena was the court for the district in which the case is pending.
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
Judge James D. Walker Jr. (Retired)
The Court decided motions from two defendants to open default arising from violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction. Court considered four factors. The motion of one defendant was denied because the Court found he was culpable in the default due to his failure to retain counsel despite repeated suggestions by the Court that he do so. The Court granted the motion of the other defendant, finding failure of its explanation to file answer to be sufficient to satisfy good cause requirement.
Debtor sought to enjoin state criminal proceedings against him on the ground that they violated the discharge injunction. Defendant made a motion to dismiss. The Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the case because debtor failed to make an adequate showing of the extraordinary circumstance that the prosecutions were commenced in bad faith.
The Court decided motions from two defendants to open default arising from violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction. Court considered four factors. The motion of one defendant was denied because the Court found he was culpable in the default due to his failure to retain counsel despite repeated suggestions by the Court that he do so. The Court granted the motion of the other defendant, finding failure of its explanation to file answer to be sufficient to satisfy good cause requirement.
Debtor sought to enjoin a state criminal proceeding against him on the ground that it violated the discharge injunction. Defendant made a motion to dismiss. The Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the case because debtor failed to make an adequate showing of the extraordinary circumstance that the prosecution was commenced in bad faith.
In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, plaintiff sought to prevent discharge of a debt that was incurred during her marriage to debtor and that debtor was required to pay under a divorce decree. The Court denied plaintiff’s request under Sections 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4)(A) because debtor demonstrated a lack of fraudulent intent in omitting certain assets from the schedules accompanying his bankruptcy petition and later affirming the accuracy of the schedules. The Court denied plaintiff’s request under Section 523(a)(15) because the benefit of discharge to debtor, who struggled to maintain a job and to make utility payments, outweighed the detriment to plaintiff, who showed no similar financial difficulties and was relying on payment of the debt to enable her to satisfy future discretionary expenses.
The Court decided motions from two defendants to open default arising from violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction. Court considered four factors. The motion of one defendant was denied because the Court found he was culpable in the default due to his failure to retain counsel despite repeated suggestions by the Court that he do so. The Court granted the motion of the other defendant, finding failure of its explanation to file answer to be sufficient to satisfy good cause requirement.
The Court decided motions from two defendants to open default arising from violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction. Court considered four factors. The motion of one defendant was denied because the Court found he was culpable in the default due to his failure to retain counsel despite repeated suggestions by the Court that he do so. The Court granted the motion of the other defendant, finding failure of its explanation to file answer to be sufficient to satisfy good cause requirement.
The Court decided motions from two defendants to open default arising from violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction. Court considered four factors. The motion of one defendant was denied because the Court found he was culpable in the default due to his failure to retain counsel despite repeated suggestions by the Court that he do so. The Court granted the motion of the other defendant, finding failure of its explanation to file answer to be sufficient to satisfy good cause requirement.
The Court decided motions from two defendants to open default arising from violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction. Court considered four factors. The motion of one defendant was denied because the Court found he was culpable in the default due to his failure to retain counsel despite repeated suggestions by the Court that he do so. The Court granted the motion of the other defendant, finding failure of its explanation to file answer to be sufficient to satisfy good cause requirement.