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