If unsecured second lienholder can prove collateral's value exceeds first secured creditor's stipulated security interest, difference in collateral's stipulated value and proven value is treated as a secured interest of second lienholder.
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 D. Walker Jr. (Retired)
Court determined that Chapter 13 Debtor's case was not moot merely because the fee which was the subject of the dispute had been returned to Chapter 13 Trustee based on the fact that Debtor's damages were more than just the fee, and the fee was tendered to an unnamed party, not the Debtor, who was the necessary party to accept the fee as settlement of the case.
Reaffirming In re Alls, 238 B.R. 914 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1999) (Walker, J.), a claim for post-petition interest on unsecured debt must be disallowed, and a Chapter 13 debtor's failure to propose post-petition interest constitutes no grounds for relief from the stay of actions against the codebtor of a Chapter 13 debtor provided by Section 1301(a).
Robert F. Hershner, Jr. (Retired)
Debtor served by mail his objection to claim at address provided in corporation's proof of claim. Debtor failed to properly serve corporation as required by Rules 7004 and 9014. Objection must be served to attention of an officer or certain agents of the corporation.
Creditor sought relief from automatic stay, alleging that Debtor had failed to make her postpetition mortgage payments. Creditor and its attorneys failed to timely respond to Debtor's request for a copy of her account history. Creditor had misapplied some of Debtor's payments. Creditor and Debtor resolved the matter, but creditor's attorney continued to seek attorney's fees from Debtor. Court ordered creditor's attorney to pay for attorney's fees that Debtor incurred after the matter was resolved.
Creditor moved for relief from discharge order that it contended was entered in error. Creditor failed to show that it was entitled to relief. Debtor awarded damages for creditor's willful violation of discharge injunction.
Debtor filed a child custody action against her ex-spouse. Debtor's obligation to pay fees of guardian ad litem were in nature of support and were nondischargeable in bankruptcy. State court appointed a guardian ad litem to protect the interest of two minor children.
Judge John T. Laney, III
Movant sold a parcel of land to Debtors through an owner financing agreement which involved a final balloon payment at the end of the one year term. After the balloon payment became due but before payment was made, Debtors filed their Chapter 13 petition. Although Debtors proposed to pay Movant in full over the life of the plan, Movant objected to confirmation. Overruling Movant’s objection, the court held that § 1322(c)(2) allows for the payment of a prepetition matured balloon over the life of the plan.
During Debtor’s Chapter 13 case, a educational loan creditor’s claim was disallowed to which the creditor did not object. Upon completion of the plan, Debtor received a general discharge. Creditor subsequently intercepted Debtor’s tax refund in payment of the school loan debt. Debtor filed a motion for contempt against the educational loan creditor alleging violation of the discharge injunction. The court held the disallowance of a claim does not necessarily discharge that claim. This is especially true given that educational loans are presumptively nondischargeable under § 523(a)(8) and the discharge order specifically excepted school loans from the discharge.
Analyzing Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of a default judgment as a motion to set aside an entry of default, the court failed to find "good cause" under Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Therefore, the court held that the entry of default would not be set aside. Because the court also failed to find "excusable neglect" under Rule 60(b), the court denied Defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment.