Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In Re Hedrick, 07-11179 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Number: 07-11179 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 04, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 4, 2008 No. 07-11179 THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 05-02689-CV-TCB BKCY No. 04-06420-BKC-JE In Re: TRACY JOSEPH HEDRICK, THERESA ANN HEDRICK, Debtors. _ NEIL C. GORDON, Trustee for the Estate of Tracy Joseph Hedrick and Theresa Ann Hedrick, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ No. 07-11187 _ D. C. Docket No. 05-03123-CV-TCB-1
More
                                                                 [PUBLISH]


              IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                               FILED
                      FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                       ________________________  ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                          JUNE 4, 2008
                              No. 07-11179              THOMAS K. KAHN
                        ________________________            CLERK


                    D. C. Docket No. 05-02689-CV-TCB
                       BKCY No. 04-06420-BKC-JE

In Re: TRACY JOSEPH HEDRICK,
       THERESA ANN HEDRICK,

                                                          Debtors.
__________________________________________________

NEIL C. GORDON, Trustee for the Estate of Tracy
Joseph Hedrick and Theresa Ann Hedrick,


                                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                  versus

NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC.,

                                                        Defendant-Appellee.

                        ________________________

                              No. 07-11187
                        ________________________

                   D. C. Docket No. 05-03123-CV-TCB-1
                      BKCY No. 03-68468-BKC-MGD
In Re: SOM R. SHARMA,

                                                                          Debtor.
__________________________________________________

NEIL C. GORDON,
Trustee for the Estate of
Santosh K. Sharma,

                                                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                            versus

ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.,

                                                                        Defendant-Appellee.

                               ________________________

                     Appeals from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Georgia
                           _________________________

                                       (June 4, 2008)

                           ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and COHN,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

       After considering the appellant’s petition for panel rehearing and suggestion

for rehearing en banc, we revise our opinion filed on April 15, 2008, and


       *
         Honorable James I. Cohn, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting by designation.

                                                2
published at 
524 F.3d 1175
, in one respect. The first two sentences of the first full

paragraph on page 1189 are deleted, and the following sentence is substituted in

their place:

      Section 547(e)(2)(A)’s primary purpose is to defeat § 547(b)(2)’s

      antecedent debt requirement by causing transfers that are perfected

      within ten days to be “made” at the time of the transfer. See Dorholt

      v. Linquist (In re Dorholt, Inc.), 
239 B.R. 521
, 523 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.

      1999), aff’d, 
224 F.3d 871
(8th Cir. 2000); 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶

      547.05[5][a], at 547–97 (15th ed. rev. 2006).

      With regard to the other issues raised, the petition for panel rehearing is

DENIED. This order does not affect appellant’s petition insofar as it is a

suggestion for rehearing en banc.




                                          3

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer