John L. King, Trustee in Reorganization of Gilcor Enterprises, Inc. v. Warren E. Gilbert
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Chipman-Union, Inc. (In re Chipman-Union, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia 2005)
- Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Banker's Note, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1993)
- In re Robert E. Derecktor of Rhode Island, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island 1992)
- Matter of Topgallant Lines, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia 1991)
- Ambassador Factors, Division Fleet Factors Corp. v. First American Bulk Carrier Corp. (In re Topgallant Lines, Inc.) (United States District Court for the District of Georgia 1991)
- Acrotube, Inc. v. J.K. Financial Group, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1987)
- Matter of Flanders (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia 1984)
- Citicorp (Usa), Inc. And Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Davidson Lumber Company, Florida Steel Corp. (11th Cir. 1983)
- Hall v. Simkins Industries, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1983)
- Matter of Jefferson Mortg. Co., Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey 1982)
- Markowitz v. Heritage Bank, N.A. (In re Jefferson Mortgage Co.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey 1982)
- Sterling National Bank & Trust Co. v. Bornstein (In re Metric Metals International, Inc.) (District Court, S.D. New York 1981)
- Sims' Crane Service, Inc. v. Reliance Insurance (United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia 1981)
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
This case is affirmed on the basis of the district court’s opinion, reported at 445 F.Supp. 479 (N.D.Ga. 1978), with the following additional observations. The appellant claims that the federal anti-assignment statute renders the assignment of the tax refund invalid. This is erroneous. The Supreme Court in Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 511, 517, 15 L.Ed.2d 428 (1966), has stated that section 203 was enacted to protect the federal government from conflicting claims and that “between the [private] parties effect might still be given to an assignment that failed to comply with the statute.” The appellant claims that under Georgia law the tax refund could not be assigned because it was not property in existence at the time of the *399 assignment. That is an incomplete statement of the law of Georgia. In an equity proceeding, such as bankruptcy, the assignment of a contingent right will be enforced. When the contingency is realized, the right to the property attaches as of the time of the assignment. Cf. Kolb v. Berlin, 356 F.2d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1966) (and Georgia cases cited).
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.