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.
Chief Judge Catherine J. Furay
Case Summary:
Plaintiff CivilGEO, Inc., and Defendant Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc., cross-moved for summary judgment. The core issue underlying the motions was whether there was insurance coverage under a policy insuring Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a defendant in a District Court action against Eternix, Ltd. Plaintiff expected Defendant insurance company to defend against the claims asserted in the District Court action. Defendant refused. Plaintiff later filed a complaint in this Court asserting Defendant breached its duty to defend. The Court ruled that at least one allegation was covered within the policy’s coverage. Under Wisconsin insurance law, one claim within policy coverage is sufficient to trigger an insurer’s duty to defend the entire suit. Plaintiff’s motion was granted.
Statute/Rule References:
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056 – Summary judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 – Summary judgment
Key Terms:
Insurer’s Duty to Defend
Summary Judgment
Wisconsin Insurance Law
In re Sparhawk LLC, et al., Case No. 26-10527-11 (04/24/2026) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 04/24/2026
Case Summary:
Permissive abstention was unwarranted following Debtors’ removal from a state court receivership related to a business relationship with their Creditor, WoodTrust Bank. Four Debtors separately filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11. Debtors each operated different facets of a transportation and logistical business. The cases were jointly administered thereafter. Creditor moved for entry of an order abstaining from and dismissing the cases. Debtors objected. Numerous factors weighed in favor of denying abstention. Creditor’s motion was denied.
Statute/Rule Reference:
28 U.S.C. § 1334 – Abstention
Key Term:
Abstention
In re Sparhawk LLC, et at., Case No. 26-10527-11 (04/24/2026) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 04/24/2026
Case Summary:
Four Debtors each filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11. Debtors operated different facets of the same transportation and logistical business. The cases were jointly administered thereafter. Creditor WoodTrust Bank moved to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. Under section 1104(a)(2), the Court found an appointment of a trustee was in the best interests of creditors, equity security holders, and other interests of the estate. Creditor’s motion was granted.
Statute/Rule Reference:
11 U.S.C. § 1104(a) – Appointment of a Trustee
Key Term:
Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee
Judge Rachel M. Blise
Case Summary:
Creditor Eternix Ltd. and the United States trustee filed motions under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) to convert the chapter 13 case to chapter 7. The court found that the debtor engineered the bankruptcy filing to avoid paying his only creditor, Eternix, which filed a claim based on copyright infringement. The debtor took great care to pay all his other creditors before filing; he admitted that the only reason for his bankruptcy filing was to avoid the Eternix debt; he engaged in extensive pre-bankruptcy planning in an attempt to shield assets from Eternix, while using those same assets to pay all of his other creditors; he failed to report gifts on his bankruptcy schedules; he manipulated his bankruptcy schedules and his proposed chapter 13 plan in an effort to leave as little money as possible for Eternix; and he valued his civil engineering software company at $0 despite privately asserting that the company was worth millions. Applying the Seventh Circuit’s precedent in In re Love, 957 F.2d 1350 (7th Cir. 1992), the court considered the totality of the circumstances to conclude that the debtor did not file chapter 13 bankruptcy in good faith. The court further determined that conversion was in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate and the estate’s only creditor.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)
Key Terms:
Motion to Dismiss or Convert
Totality of Circumstances
Good Faith
Case Summary:
The plaintiffs filed an adversary complaint against the debtor-defendants seeking to have a claim for fraud declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The plaintiffs alleged that the debtor-defendants made misrepresentations in connection with the plaintiffs' investments in a restaurant business owned by the debtor-defendant husband. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. None of the statements that the plaintiffs relied on were actionable misrepresentations under Wisconsin law, so there was no underlying debt for the Court to declare nondischargeable. The defendants’ statements regarding the business’s prospects were non-actionable puffery, and the plaintiffs did not present evidence that they reasonably relied on the statements. In addition, the defendants' oral statements regarding the restaurant's financial condition could not support a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A). Without an underlying debt or written statements regarding financial condition, the plaintiffs could not establish the required elements of their § 523(a)(2)(A) claim, and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056
Key Terms:
Summary Judgment
Nondischargeable Debt
Case Summary:
The chapter 7 Debtor purchased real property from one of five heirs of the claimant’s Estate. The Estate filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case asserting that the debtor was liable for civil theft and sought the value of the property, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs. The Estate contended that the heir’s transfer of the property to herself through a Transfer by Affidavit was invalid, as was the heir’s transfer of the property from herself to the Debtor. The Debtor’s objection to the claim presented the legal issues whether a single heir can use the Transfer by Affidavit procedure outlined in section 867.03 of the Wisconsin Statutes to take legal title to real property and whether that heir can transfer the real property to a third party. The Court concluded that the Transfer by Affidavit was valid under section 867.03, and that the heir had the ability to transfer the property at issue to the Debtor. Therefore, because the Debtor was not liable for civil theft under the theory presented by the Estate, and the Estate’s claim was disallowed.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 502
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f)
Wis. Stat. § 857.01
Wis. Stat. § 867.03
Key Terms:
Motion to Dismiss
Property of Estate
Case Summary:
The chapter 13 debtor received an inheritance more than 180 days after the petition date but well before all payments under the plan were completed. The chapter 13 trustee argued that the debtor's inheritance was property of the estate under § 1306(a)(1) because it was property that the debtor acquired after the commencement of the case but before the case was closed, and that a plan modification to provide an additional dividend to unsecured creditors was required. The debtor argued that § 1306(a)(1) could not draw into the estate any inheritance a debtor receives or obtains the right to receive more than 180 days post-petition, by virtue of the time-limiting language in § 541(a)(5), so she was not required to use the inheritance to pay unsecured creditors. The court held that an inheritance received more than 180 days after the petition date can be property of the bankruptcy estate under § 1306(a)(1), and the plan may be modified to account for the inheritance. The court did not determine whether any particular modification of the plan was appropriate because no modified plan had yet been proposed.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(5)
11 U.S.C. § 1306(a)(1)
Key Terms:
Motion to Dismiss
Property of Estate