You are here

Opinions

The Western District of Wisconsin offers a database of opinions for the years 1986 to present, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter a keyword, statute, rule or case number in the search box above.

Opinions are also available on the Government Printing Office website for Appellate, District and Bankruptcy cases. The content of this collection dates back to April 2004, though searchable electronic holdings for some courts may be incomplete for this earlier time period.

For a direct link to the Western Wisconsin Bankruptcy Court on-line opinions, visit this link.

Available Decisions:

  • Chief Judge Catherine J. Furay -- 2013 - present
  • Judge William V. Altenberger -- 2016 - present
  • Judge Rachel M. Blise -- 2021 - present
  • Judge William H. Frawley -- 1973 - 1986
  • Judge G. Michael Halfenger -- 2020 - present
  • Judge Beth E. Hanan -- 2023 - present
  • Judge Brett H. Ludwig -- 2017 - 2020
  • Judge Thomas M. Lynch -- 2018 - present
  • Judge Robert D. Martin -- 1990 - 2016
  • Judge Katherine M. Perhach -- 2020 - present
  • Judge Thomas S. Utschig -- 1986 - 2012

Chief Judge Catherine J. Furay

Case Summary:
The Court approved a fee application in part and denied it in part. Billing practices like vague descriptions of services, lumping unrelated activities into single entries, and submitting bills with entries that appeared duplicate impeded the Court from determining whether certain fees were reasonable or necessary. A number of the services the attorney provided were necessary and calculated to benefit the estate at the time they were performed. However, some services were unusual, like acting as a disbursing agent, and others improper, such as pursuing collections actions in bankruptcy court, and the Court denied fees for these services.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 330 -- Compensation of Professionals

Key Terms:
Attorney Fees
Compensation of Professionals


Case Summary:
Permissive abstention and remand was warranted following the Debtor’s removal from state court of a dispute concerning a business relationship. The state court action centered around whether the business relationship was a partnership, and the Debtor requested an injunction preventing the other party from carrying on business operations, dissolution, and an order of accounting and winding up of partnership affairs. Numerous factors weighed in favor of abstention. The action exclusively featured state law issues, so state law issues predominated over bankruptcy issues. Remand also promoted judicial efficiency, as the action was a non-core, related-to proceeding and the Bankruptcy Court would only have been able to enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The state court had jurisdiction to finally adjudicate claims.

Statute/Rule References:
28 U.S.C. § 1334 -- Abstention

Key Terms:
Abstention


Case Summary:
Land contract vendors objected to confirmation of the Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan proposing to cure a default after the redemption date set in a judgment of strict foreclosure. Under Wisconsin law, equitable title remained with the Debtors because the state court had not entered an order confirming the default after the expiration of the redemption period. Section 1322’s more specific cure provision governed the Debtors’ ability to cure, not the general provisions of section 108(b) extending a non-bankruptcy deadline for curing a default. The Debtors could cure the default within a “reasonable time” in their plan under section 1322(b)(5).

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) -- Provide for Curing of Default

Key Terms:
Confirmation - Chapter 13
Cure in Chapter 13 Plan
Plan Confirmation
Specificity of Statute


Case Summary:
After the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the decision issued May 6, 2014, the Court held a trial to determine whether the defendant committed defalcation under section 523(a)(4), that is, whether he acted knowing his conduct would violate his Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”) duties. The Court found he had. Although the Defendant testified he did not know what PACA required of him, this testimony was not credible given his long experience in the grocery business. Additionally, every invoice the Defendant received from the Plaintiff stated the listed items were subject to a statutory trust pending receipt of full payment, putting him on notice of his duties.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud in Fiduciary Capacity

Key Terms:
Defalcation while Acting as a Fiduciary


Case Summary:
After reaching a settlement with the Trustee on his objection to their claim of exemption in real property, the Debtors sold land to fund the settlement. They then filed a proof of claim for delinquent taxes, attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the objection and selling the land, and money expended to satisfy judgment liens on the property. The Court sustained the Trustee’s objection to the proof of claim for a number of reasons. Debtors cannot assert claims against themselves. Additionally, the claim was filed late and the Trustee objected, subjecting it to disallowance under section 502(b)(9). There were a number of problems with the Debtors’ claim for real estate taxes, and it did not meet the statutory criteria for the asserted section 507(a)(8) priority treatment. Finally, as for the attorney’s fees, although Chapter 7 trustees may hire an attorney to be compensated from the estate, here, the Debtors incurred the fees.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 101(5) -- Definition of Claim
11 U.S.C. § 101(10) -- Definition of Creditor
11 U.S.C. § 330 -- Compensation of Professionals
11 U.S.C. § 502(b) -- Allowance of Claims or Interests
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8) -- Priority of Claims - Taxes

Key Terms:
Claims - Allowance
Claims - Definition
Claims - Late Filed
Compensation of Professionals


Case Summary:
In prior proceedings, the District Court determined the Defendant’s produce LLC had violated its Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”) trust obligations to the plaintiff. It made no findings about whether the defendant was individually liable. The Defendant then filed an individual Chapter 7 petition, and the Plaintiff sought to except the PACA debt from discharge under section 523(a)(4). In denying a motion to dismiss the adversary complaint, the Bankruptcy Court determined the defendant-owner was personally liable for the dissipation of the PACA trust assets. The Court also ruled that a PACA trust imposed fiduciary duties within the meaning of section 523(a)(4). The Plaintiff then filed a motion for summary judgment, and the only question remaining was whether the Debtor’s conduct constituted fraud or defalcation within the meaning of section 523(a)(4). The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s arguments that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “defalcation” in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., 133 S. Ct. 1754 (2013), did not apply to statutory breaches of fiduciary duty and that a breach of fiduciary duty imposed by PACA constituted per se defalcation within the meaning of section 523(a)(4). Instead, applying Bullock, the Court looked to the facts available and could not conclude whether or not the Debtor had knowledge of, or acted with gross recklessness in respect to, the improper nature of the behavior that resulted in a breach of his fiduciary duties. Accordingly, the Court denied summary judgment.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud in Fiduciary Capacity

Key Term:
Defalcation while Acting as a Fiduciary


Case Summary:
The Plaintiff sought a determination that debt for overpaid unemployment benefits was nondischargeable. On summary judgment, the court had an obligation to verify the debts were nondischargeable, even though the defendant conceded the overpayment was nondischargeable and only disputed his liability for the filing fee. The overpayment was excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A) because the Defendant falsely certified he was unemployed and not receiving wages. A penalty assessed for the overpayment was intended to punish fraud, and thus was excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(7). The Plaintiff could recover the fee for filing the adversary proceeding, as its recovery was permitted under a state statute. Because the underlying debt was nondischargeable, the filing fee was too.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) -- Nondischargeability - Fines / Penalties / Forfeitures

Key Terms:
Fines - Penalties - Forfeiture
Fraud
Nondischargeable Debt


Case Summary:
A few months after filing bankruptcy, the Debtor was convicted of first-degree homicide for the murder of his mother. From prison, he filed a pro se adversary proceeding seeking, among other things, a finding that his bankruptcy estate had an interest in proceeds from his mother’s life insurance policies. The defendants’ motion to dismiss argued that the Debtor’s interest in the life insurance proceeds was severed upon his conviction by operation of Wis. Stat. § 854.14, Wisconsin’s “slayer’s statute.” The Debtor argued that he was entitled to exhaust his appellate remedies before the statute could be applied.

At the time the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed, that question—whether the slayer statute applied upon conviction or awaited the completion of an appeal—was a matter of first impression in Wisconsin. While the motion to dismiss was pending, however, the Debtor’s criminal conviction was affirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Concluding that the affirmance mooted the legal question raised by the motion to dismiss, the Bankruptcy Court held that the slayer’s statute severed the Debtor’s interest in the proceeds as of the date of his mother’s death, thereby depriving the bankruptcy estate of any interest. The Court explained further that even if the affirmance had not exhausted the Debtor’s appellate remedies, the slayer’s statute was triggered by the Debtor’s conviction. Accordingly, it granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)
Wis. Stat. § 854.14 -- Slayer's Statute

Key Terms:
Property of the Estate


Judge Robert D. Martin

Case Summary:
After a trial on the dischargeability of debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), § 523(a)(4), and 523(a)(6), the plaintiff filed a proposed bill of costs. The Debtor-Defendant objected on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not the prevailing party on all claims. The Court held that the complete lack of success on the first two claims must result in a reduction of two thirds of the total fees. As to the third claim, the Court recognized that only a state court can determine precisely who the prevailing party was. Nonetheless, the Court awarded the full one third of the fees to the Plaintiff in light of the evidence presented at trial.

Statute/Rule References:
28 U.S.C. § 1920
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7054

Key Terms:
Fee Dispute


Pages