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

Judge Thomas S. Utschig

In re Woller, Case No. 11-14298-7 (08/16/2012) (483 B.R. 886) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 08/16/2012

Case Summary:
The Chapter 7 trustee objected to various exemptions, including a semi-tractor which the debtors claimed as “business property,” a bank account, revenues from the husband’s trucking business which had been claimed under an exemption for 75% of a debtor’s weekly “net income,” and an annuity purchased on the eve of bankruptcy with funds from the sale of real estate inherited from the wife’s father. The Court found that while the semi-tractor was a “motor vehicle,” the Debtors were still entitled to claim it as “business property” as it qualified as equipment within the meaning of that exemption. The trucking revenue also qualified as “net income” and the debtors’ exemption planning as to the purchase of the annuity did not rise to the level of “extrinsic” conduct which would justify the denial of the exemption. However, the debtors were not entitled to exempt a bank account used solely for the purpose of depositing the husband’s trucking receipts, as it was not used for the debtor’s “personal” use. The objection was granted in part and denied in part.

Statute/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 815.18 -- Exemptions

Key Terms:
Exemptions

James Paul Pulaski and Judith Pearl Pulaski v. Dakota Financial, LLC (In re Pulaski), Adv. No. 11-0282, Case No. 11-14135-13 (07/13/2012) (475 B.R. 681) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 07/13/2012

Case Summary:
The Debtors filed an adversary proceeding to avoid the defendant’s mortgage. They alleged that the mortgage was invalid due to unconscionability, lack of consideration, mistake, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The defendant argued that the court lacked the constitutional authority to rule on these claims under Stern v. Marshall, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011). The court found that the debtors’ claims all related to issues which would be resolved in the process of adjudicating the defendant’s claim, which would not be an allowed secured claim until the debtors’ claim objection (and their adversary proceeding, which was the vehicle for resolving the objection) was resolved. The request to dismiss the adversary proceeding was denied.

Statute/Rule References:
28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) -- Core Proceeding

Key Terms:
Constitutional Authority of Article I Court
Core Proceedings

In re Mississippi Sports and Recreation, Inc., Case No. 10-17601-11 (06/08/2012) (483 B.R. 164) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 06/08/2012

Case Summary:
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources moved to dismiss the case and alleged that the debtor had not obtained confirmation of a plan within the time periods required in a small business case. The plan was filed in a timely fashion and the first hearing on confirmation occurred within 45 days of the filing of the plan. The confirmation hearing was adjourned several times, although the debtor did not file a formal motion to extend the time for confirmation. The court found that the adjournments occurred prior to the expiration of the existing deadline, parties in interest had sufficient opportunity to object to any extension, and all parties acquiesced to the adjournments. The code does not require a formal motion but simply a “demonstration” that a plan is likely to be confirmed within a reasonable time. The motion to dismiss was denied. Reversed and remanded on appeal.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1121(e)(3)(A)
11 U.S.C. § 1129(e) -- Confirmation of Small Business Case

Key Terms:
Confirmation of Plan (Small Business Chapter 11)

In re Thulis, Case No. 10-16841-7 (06/04/2012) (474 B.R. 668) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 06/04/2012

Case Summary:
Chapter 7 Trustee objected to bank’s secured claim on the grounds that its mortgage did not cover the specific parcel previously sold by the Trustee. The bank contended that as a hypothetical subsequent purchaser under § 544(a)(3), the Trustee would have had constructive notice of its claim. The Bankruptcy Court found that although Wisconsin law charges prospective purchasers with constructive notice of certain things that might be ascertained by a review of the land or an inquiry of those in possession, nothing about the parcel in question would provide notice of the bank’s mortgage. The mortgage was not in the property’s chain of title and Wisconsin’s doctrine of constructive notice would not require a prospective purchaser to make inquiries about an owner’s financing arrangements. The trustee’s objection was sustained, and the bank’s claim was allowed as unsecured.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor

Key Terms:
Lien Avoidance
“Strong Arm” Power

In re Palmer Lake Plaza, LLC, Case No. 12-11183-11 (04/16/2012) (470 B.R. 511) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 04/16/2012

Case Summary:
A creditor moved to transfer venue. The debtor’s primary asset was an office building located in Minnesota. The debtor was organized under Minnesota law, its principal place of business was in Minnesota, and the sole member of the debtor was a Minnesota resident. The case was filed in Wisconsin based entirely upon the debtor’s affiliation” with another entity whose case was presently pending in Western Wisconsin. While venue was technically proper under the statute, the court agreed with the creditor that the case should be transferred to Minnesota. It would be far easier for all parties for the case to be heard in Minnesota, and the debtor’s connection with Wisconsin was tenuous at best. Motion granted.

Statute/Rule References:
28 U.S.C. § 1408 -- Venue of Cases Under Title 11
28 U.S.C. § 1412 -- Change of Venue

Key Terms:
Transfer

Karina Amundson and Steven Lankford v. Theodore Duane Slaton and Vicki Lynn Slaton (In re Slaton), Adv. No. 10-0120, Case No. 10-10704-13 (04/06/2012) (469 B.R. 814) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 04/06/2012

Case Summary:
The plaintiffs alleged that the debtors fraudulently induced them to invest in an auction business. The parties had become friends after a chance meeting at a rummage sale, and their shared interests made them believe that they could operate a business together. The court found that the debtors did not make any false representations to the plaintiffs. The debtors used the plaintiffs’ investment in their partnership to pay down the secured debts of the business, but the plaintiffs were informed of this plan. There was no fiduciary relationship between the parties and the debtors’ conduct did not amount to a willful and malicious injury. However, the court found in the plaintiffs’ favor on their unjust enrichment claim, as the proceeds from the sale of the business real estate were the direct result of the plaintiffs’ investment in the business. Under the circumstances, it would be inequitable for the debtors to retain that benefit without payment to the plaintiffs.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud in Fiduciary Capacity
11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6) -- Nondischargeability - Willful and Malicious Injury

Key Terms:
Fraud
Fraud - Fiduciary Capacity
Injust Enrichment
Willful and Malicious

Judge Robert D. Martin

In re Landsinger, Case No. 11-13802-7 (07/23/2012) (490 B.R. 827) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 07/23/2012

Case Summary:
During the Debtors’ marriage, the Debtor-wife received an interest in real property from her father. The Debtors later executed a mortgage note with a bank and pledged the real property as collateral. The Debtors made payments on the mortgage note with marital property funds. The Debtors filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, and each claimed an exemption in the real property under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5). The Chapter 7 Trustee objected, claiming that the wife’s interest in the real property was individual property under Wisconsin law, and therefore, the husband could not claim any exemption in it. The Bankruptcy Court found that marital property was “mixed” with the wife’s individual property under Wis. Stat. § 766.63(1) because the principal payments the Debtors made on the mortgage note constituted marital property. However, because the marital property component could be traced, the real property was not reclassified to marital property. The Debtor-husband was entitled to claim an exemption in his undivided one-half interest in the amount of principal payments made on the mortgage note.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(d) -- Exemptions - Federal
Wis. Stat. § 766.63(1)

Key Terms:
Marital Property
Mixed Property
Mortgage Payments
Wild Card Exemption

In re Butler, Case No. 11-15497-7 (05/29/2012) (472 B.R. 786) -- Judge Robert D. 05/29/2012

Case Summary:
The Trustee objected to the Debtor’s claimed exemption in a “CSI Retirement Savings Plan” under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E). The Trustee argued that the Plan was actually a limited partnership interest, and therefore, it did not meet the standard under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E). Examining the three elements of the statute, the Bankruptcy Court overruled the Trustee’s objection. The Court found the Plan to be a “similar plan or contract” because it provided income that substituted for wages. The Plan payments met the second element of the statute, as redemption of units could occur “on account of” disability, death, or illness. Finally, the Court found the Plan to be reasonably necessary for the support of the Debtor. The Debtor was entitled to claim an exemption in the Plan under the statute.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E) -- Exemptions - Federal - Stock Bonus, Pension, Profit-sharing, Annuity

Key Terms:
Exemptions
Limited Partnership
Similar Plan

Troy Morrison and Christa Morrison v. Shelley Mergen (In re Mergen), Adv. No. 12-0016, Case No. 11-16545-7 (05/01/2012) (473 B.R. 743) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 05/01/2012

Case Summary:
Plaintiffs Troy and Christa Morrison sought to except the debt owed them from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The Plaintiffs relied on a state court jury verdict and judgment entered against the Debtor. The Debtor failed to answer timely, and the Plaintiffs moved for default judgment. The Debtor argued that the state court findings failed to establish the elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), and was therefore not entitled to preclusive effect. Treating the matter as cross motions for summary judgment, the Bankruptcy Court found that the standards for collateral estoppel and issue preclusion were satisfied because the state court verdict contained findings that tracked the elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), and the state court judgment was a final judgment on the merits of the case. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the Plaintiffs could not prevail under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because identical issues were litigated in state court and the jury found that the Debtor lacked the requisite intent to deceive. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Debtor.

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

Key Terms:
Collateral Estoppel
Issue Preclusion
Default Judgment

In re Herbst, Case No. 12-11044-13 (04/11/2012) (469 B.R. 299) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 04/11/2012

Case Summary:
The Chapter 13 Debtor alleged that Talmer Bank & Trust willfully violated the automatic stay by refusing to return equipment it repossessed prepetition. The Bank had exercised its rights under a security agreement and repossessed the Debtor’s equipment pursuant to a default judgment and writ of replevin. The Bankruptcy Court held that the Bank violated 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) by exercising control over property of the bankruptcy estate. The equipment had not yet been sold or transferred, and no evidence of a contract for disposition was presented. Therefore, under Wis. Stat. § 409.623(3) and Wis. Stat. § 409.617(a), the Debtor retained rights in the equipment even after the bank repossessed it. Further, the judgment of replevin did not extinguish the Debtor’s legal and equitable interests in the equipment. Therefore, it remained property of the Estate and subject to the automatic stay. Finding the violation to be willful, the Court held the Bank in contempt until it returned the equipment.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)
11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1)
Wis. Stat. § 409.617(a)
Wis. Stat. § 409.623(3)

Key Terms:
Property of the Estate
Willful Violation
Automatic Stay
Collateral
Replevin

Pages