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 Robert D. Martin

In re Tozer, Case No. 06-12549-13 (06/09/2008) (392 B.R. 758) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 06/09/2008

Case Summary:
Chapter 13 plan modification. The Debtor’s ex-attorney sought to modify the Chapter 13 plan to extend payments and pay attorney’s fees. In the Seventh Circuit, § 1329 imposes no threshold requirement of a change in financial circumstances. The attorney was the “holder of an allowed unsecured claim,” thus he could seek modification to “extend . . . time for such payments.” § 1329(a). Modification of the plan was approved.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1329(a) -- Modification of Plan After Confirmation

Key Terms:
Administrative Expenses

In re Straight Arrow Construction Company, Inc., Case No. 04-17056-7 (03/13/2008) (393 B.R. 652) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 03/13/2008

Case Summary:
Trustee’s objection to claims. Debtor is a general contractor. Two subcontractors filed claims “secured” by operation of Wisconsin’s theft by contractor statute. Wis. Stat. § 779.16. Wisconsin Dairies v. Citizens Bank & Trust controlled the outcome. 160 Wis. 2d 758 (Wis. 1991). The claims were secured only to the extent that the funds were traceable to specific construction projects on which the creditors worked, and only to the extent that funds from those projects were in the possession of the Trustee. The remainder of the creditors’ claims were unsecured.

Statute/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 779.16

Key Terms:
Claims

In re Airadigm Communications, Inc., Case No. 06-10930-11 (01/18/2008) (393 B.R. 647) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 01/18/2008
William J. Rameker, Trustee v. Todd Holden (In re Williams), Adv. No. 07-0074, Case No. 06-12442-7 (12/04/2007) (383 B.R. 727) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/04/2007

Case Summary:
Trustee's application to sell Debtor’s interest in real property. The Non-debtor Defendant argued that the Debtor’s interest in a partnership was terminated by a prior written agreement. The consideration for the agreement was not a payment to the Debtor made prior to the agreement, rather, it was a present release of an obligation to reimburse the partnership for said payment, and thus the agreement was enforceable. The Debtor had no interest in the partnership property and the trustee’s complaint was dismissed.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 363(h) -- Sale of Co-Owned Property
Wis. Stat. § 178.15(1) -- Partnership
Wis. Stat. § 178.26 -- Partnership

Key Terms:
Partnerships

In re McClearn, Case No. 04-17344-7 (11/19/2007) (384 B.R. 196) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 11/19/2007

Case Summary:
After successfully avoiding a lien on a house, a Chapter 7 Trustee moved to sell the house and realize the proceeds that the holder of the avoided lien would have received in a sale. The Debtor disputed the value of the house and argued that the homestead exemption primes the Trustee's position. The Court found that the Trustee took the rights and priority of the holder of the avoided lien and that the Trustee would benefit sufficiently to justify the sale. The application was granted. Section 544.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
11 U.S.C. § 551 -- Automatic Preservation of Avoided Transfer
Wis. Stat. § 242.02 -- Fraudulent Conveyance
Wis. Stat. § 242.04 -- Fraudulent Conveyance
Wis. Stat. § 242.05 -- Fraudulent Conveyance

Key Terms:
Lien Avoidance

In re Sunde, Case No. 07-10151-13 (10/02/2007) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 10/02/2007
Airadigm Communications, Inc., Case No. 06-10930-11 (09/17/2007) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 09/17/2007
Lenee D. Cole v. American Education Services (In re Cole), Adv. No. 06-0196, Case No. 05-17753-7 (09/04/2007) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 09/04/2007

Judge Thomas S. Utschig

Peter F. Herrell, Trustee v. Daryl DeCora and Ho-Cak Federal (In re DeCora), Adv. No. 07-111, Case No. 06-11697-7 (3/28/2008) (387 B.R. 230) – Judge Thomas S. Utschig 03/28/2008

Case Summary:
Trustee sought to avoid security interest of bank in a debtor’s per capita interest in tribal gaming revenues. The court concluded that the debtor’s right to the distributions was property of the estate, and the bank failed to properly perfect its security interest when it mailed a copy of the assignment documents to the Ho-Chunk Nation but did not file a financing statement as required by Wisconsin law. Trustee, as hypothetical lien creditor, may avoid security interest for benefit of the estate.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 541 -- Property of the Estate
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
Wis. Stat. § 409.310 -- Security Interests - Filing of Financing Statement
Wis. Stat. § 409.317 -- Security Interests - Rights of Lien Creditor

Key Terms:
Perfection of Security Interest
Property of the Estate

In re Jafari, Case No. 06-10155-11 (10/16/2007) (378 B.R. 575) – Judge Thomas S. Utschigs. Apr. 7, 2008)] 10/16/2007

Case Summary:
Debtor and chapter 11 trustee objected to claims filed by various casinos, all of which consisted of “markers” owed for gambling debts incurred by the debtor pre-petition. None of the claims had been reduced to judgment in Nevada, and the objecting parties contended that as gambling debts are unenforceable under Wisconsin law, the claims should be disallowed. The bankruptcy court (378 B.R. 575) sustained the objections, ruling that under choice of laws principles Wisconsin law would apply, and that under Wisconsin law the debts would be unenforceable. On appeal, the district court ruled even if Wisconsin choice of law principles applied, Wisconsin courts would apply Nevada law, thus rendering the debts enforceable. The bankruptcy court’s order was reversed.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 502 -- Allowance of Claims or Interests

Key Terms:
Claims - Allowance

Pages