In Re Hedrick

524 F.3d 1175

Opinion

[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.

3

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.