Bankruptcy

NDGa - Misc. Consumer Cases: Means Test, Automatic Stay, Disqualification of Judge, Preferential Transfers

By Scott Riddle

In re McDaniel, No. 06-62786, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 3390 (August 24, 007)(CRM).  The United States Trustee filed a motion to dismiss under §707(b)(2) and (b)(3) based on  presumption of abuse and totality of circumstances.  The Court held that 1) the debtor could deduct secured debt payments on the means test even where he intended on surrendering the collateral (this included payments for rental properties owned by the debtor), 2) The debtor could not take the ownership deduction for a vehicle that was not leased or subject to a secured claim, and 3) the totality of circumstances did not support dismissal after the court considered a child on the way.

 In re Doran, Ch. 13 Case No. 07-42460, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 4009 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. October 30, 2007)(MGD).  Debtor did not overcome presumption of bad faith in her third case in one year by clear and convincing evidence.  Prior cases were dismissed for failure to perform duties of debtor, and she did not show chance in financial circumstances.  Therefore, she was not entitled to imposition of automatic stay

In re Dean, No. 07-71556, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 3429 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. August 21, 2007)(PWB).  Debtor not entitled to disqualification of Bankruptcy judge merely because he filed a pro se lawsuit against the judge,  the Court itself, Chapter 13 trustee, State of Georgia, and usual cast in such lawsuits.  The Court held that the debtor presented no evidence of bias or impartiality outside of the case, and that judge-shopping through threatening or fling lawsuits was not permissible.

Goodman v. Southern Horizon Bank (In re Norsworthy), Adv. No. 06-1070, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 3726 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. September 4, 2007)(WHD).  In an preference action filed by the Chapter 13 Trustee, summary judgment was granted to the Trustee where debtor granted bank a security interest in his residence within the preference period.  Because this property would have been the only non-exempt asset shared by creditors in a hypothetical Ch. 7, the Bank necessarily received more than it would have in the Ch. 7.

Full post as published by Georgia Bankruptcy Blog on January 12, 2008 (boomark / email).