In Re Hedrick

[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