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

Sheila Marie Spencer v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, a/k/a Freddie Mac, et al. (In re Spencer), Adv. No. 15-0060, Case No. 15-11204-13 (05/15/2015) (532 B.R. 303) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 05/15/2015

Case Summary:
At the time this adversary proceeding was filed, a motion for relief from stay was pending in the main case. The Debtor’s arguments in opposition appeared to require the conclusion that until a determination was reached in the adversary proceeding, it was impossible to determine whether the movant had standing to seek relief from stay. Thus, the Court reviewed the adversary complaint. Because the review suggested the Debtor was challenging the validity of a foreclosure judgment, the Court ordered the Debtor to explain why the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would not bar the claims. After considering her response and other submissions, the Court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 362 -- Automatic stay
11 U.S.C. § 362(g) -- Automatic stay - Burden of Proof

Key Terms:
Automatic Stay
In Rem Relief
Rooker-Feldman

In re Adolphson, Case No. 14-11773-7 (02/27/2015) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 02/27/2015

Case Summary:
The Court sustained the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to Debtors’ claim of exemptions. The Debtors claimed an exemption in a dairy cooperative equity revolvement account under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E). The cooperative bylaws were clear that redemption of the Debtors’ equity was entirely within the discretion of the board of directors. Neither illness, disability, death, nor age would trigger redemption of the Debtors’ equity. Although the Debtors may have accumulated their patronage equity over time, the Court also determined they did not have a right to receive payment because of their length of service. This term connotes tenure, in the sense of plans conferring benefits based on the number of years of employment.

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

Key Terms:
Exemptions

In re Minor, Case No. 14-13002-7 (02/26/2015) (526 B.R. 305) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 02/26/2015

Case Summary:
The Court sustained the Chapter 7 Trustee’s objection to Debtors’ claim of exemptions. The Debtors claimed an exemption in two non-contiguous lots under Wis. Stat. § 815.20. Each lot was improved with a two-bedroom residence. The Debtors argued both lots constituted their homestead because they occupied one or another of the lots, and sometimes separated and occupied both simultaneously. The Court determined the lots taken together did not qualify as one homestead. Although a person may have multiple houses, only one is his home, and thus only one may qualify as a homestead. The Debtors also could not exempt the lots under a theory that each debtor had established a separate homestead, even if Wisconsin law permitted such an exemption. The Debtors had not separated with the intent to remain apart when they filed their bankruptcy petition.

Statute/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 815.20 -- Homestead Exemption
Wis. Stat. § 990.01(14)

Key Terms:
Exemptions
Homestead Exemption

Thomas Kriescher, Vicky Kriescher, and Marjac, Inc. v. Marjorie Ellen Gibson (In re Gibson), Adv. No. 14-0034, Case No. 13-15635-7 (11/6/2014) (521 B.R. 645) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 11/06/2014

Case Summary:
On summary judgment, collateral estoppel applied to render part of a state court judgment award nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4). The findings leading to the award established the defendant was a fiduciary. They also established she committed defalcation by retaining, commingling, and expending funds. As to whether the amount of the state court awards on the remaining claims were non-dischargeable, issues of fact remained, as necessary findings in the judgment did not satisfy the elements of sections 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(4), or 523(a)(6).

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) -- Nondischargeability - Embezzlement

Key Terms:
Collateral Estoppel
Defalcation while Acting as a Fiduciary
Dischargeability
Embezzlement
Fiduciary Capacity
Fraud - Fiduciary Capacity
Issue Preclusion
Nondischargeable Debt

In re J&B Haldeman Holdings, LLC, and In re Haldeman, Case Nos. 11-11386-11 & 11-11359-11 (09/23/2014) (517 B.R. 910) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 09/23/2014

Case Summary:
A Chapter 11 debtor’s confirmed plan contained a provision obligating the Debtor to execute a deed to specified property in the event of a default and a failure to cure. The Court had jurisdiction over a creditor’s motion to compel such a transfer. The motion “arose in” a case under title 11. The Court had the authority under section 1142(b) to order the transfer of the deed. It previously found the plan had not been “substantially consummated,” and in any event, section 1142(b) does not reference acts necessary for “substantial consummation” of the plan but rather for “consummation.” The Court determined permissive abstention was not warranted and ordered the transfer.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1142(b) -- Implementation of Plan

Key Terms:
Implementation of Plan

In re Anderson, Case No. 13-16039-7 (08/05/2014) (516 B.R. 532) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 08/05/2014

Case Summary:
The Debtor sold property on a land contract and claimed an exemption in the proceeds under the applicable Minnesota homestead exemption statute. The statute provides, “[t]he owner may sell and convey the homestead without subjecting it, or the proceeds of such sale for the period of one year after sale” to any debt from which it was exempt. For the purposes of the statute, the “sale” occurred when the Debtor and vendee executed the land contract, not when the Debtor received the last payment. Accordingly, the Debtor was only entitled to exempt proceeds she received in the year following the execution. She could not exempt proceeds received after that time.

Statute/Rule References:
Minn. Stat. § 510.07 -- Proceeds from Sale of Homestead

Key Terms:
Exemptions
Homestead Exemption

In re Viner, Inc., Case No. 11-16408-7 (08/05/2014) (520 B.R. 268) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 08/05/2014

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

Jeffrey J. Peterson and Gregory J. Forster v. Ryan Thomas Bechard (In re Bechard), Adv. No. 14-0076, Case No. 14-11862-13 (7/21/2014) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 07/21/2014

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

In re Johnson, Case No. 13-15325-13 (07/08/2014) (513 B.R. 364) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 07/08/2014

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

H. Brooks and Company, LLC v. Stanley G. Yerges (In re Yerges), Adv. No. 13-0105, Case No. 13-10813-7 (07/02/2014) (512 B.R. 916) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 07/02/2014

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

Pages