U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2008

Gordon v. Novastar Mortgage, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided June 4, 2008 · Barkett, Carnes, Cohn

529 F.3d 1026; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11834; 2008 WL 2265282 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

William L. Rothschild, Ellenberg, Ogier & Rothschild, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Gordon., Craig K. Pendergrast, Paul Baisier, Matthew N. Foree, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Appellees., Edward D. Burch, Jr., Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Stewart Title Guaranty Co., Amicus Curiae., William V. Custer, IV, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Atlanta, GA, for Georgia Bankers Ass’n, Amicus Curiae., Samuel K. Crocker, Crocker & Niarhos, Nashville, TN, for Nat. Ass’n of Bankruptcy Trustees, Amicus Curiae.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

USAA Fed. Sav. Bank v. Hope (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2018)
Heaven's Landing, LLC (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia 2023)
United States v. State of Alabama (11th Cir. 2015)
Keith Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (11th Cir. 2015)
United States v. State of Alabama (11th Cir. 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.