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

In re Sternitzky, Case No. 21-11358-12 (12/23/2021) (635 B.R. 353) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 12/23/2021

Case Summary:
Secured Creditor filed a Motion for Relief from Stay and Co-Debtor Stay and to Dismiss arising under 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 1208(c). Secured Creditor claimed bad faith as well as lack of adequate protection as the bases. Debtors posited that equity in the property together with a stipulation moot the motions. The Court granted the Motion for Relief From Stay and Co-Debtor Stay and the Motion to Dismiss, finding that the Debtors' failure to perform under a previously confirmed Chapter 12 plan, repeated and unreasonable delays by Debtors prejudicial to creditors, and a pattern of waiting until the eve of foreclosure hearings to file bankruptcy confirmed litigation strategy and not an honest effort to perform under any Chapter 12 plan.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) -- Automatic Stay
11 U.S.C. § 1208(c) -- Conversion or Dismissal

Key Terms:
Automatic Stay
Conversion
Dismissal

Strategic Partners, Inc., and Michael Singer v. Scott C. Steuernagel (In re Steuernagel), Adv. No. 20-00073, Case No. 20-12148-7 (12/13/2021) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 12/13/2021

Case Summary:
Plaintiffs Creditors filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) against Defendant Debtor. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, finding that Plaintiffs failed to establish all of the required elements for summary judgment on the claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), specifically whether there was intent to deceive and whether Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the Debtor’s written statements concerning Debtor’s financial condition. Further, the Court granted partial summary in favor of Defendant, dismissing one of the Plaintiff’s section 523 claims against Defendant. Because there was no evidence of Debtor being indebted to that Plaintiff in any way, and because section 523 requires there be a right to payment, that Plaintiff cannot make a successful claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) -- Use of a Statement in Writing
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056 -- Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)

Patrick S. Layng, United States Trustee v. Mark A. Ledin and Debra L. Ledin (In re Ledin), Adv. No. 21-00009, Case No. 20-12220-7 (11/19/2021) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 11/19/2021

Case Summary:
After conducting a Rule 2004 Examination of the Debtors, the United States Trustee filed an adversary proceeding seeking denial of the Debtors’ discharge under Sections 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4). The Debtors denied the allegations, claiming they provided the necessary information to their prior counsel, who did not adequately include the information on their schedules, petition, and statements. The Court found that the Debtors’ ever-changing and often conflicting testimony and filed schedules demonstrated an intent to conceal property, resulting in a denial of discharge on the grounds that Debtors (1) intended to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or officer of the estate by concealing property of the estate post-petition, (2) made false oaths on their bankruptcy schedules, and (3) made false oaths at their Section 341 Meeting of Creditors.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(B) -- Discharge
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4) -- Discharge

Key Term:
Discharge

In re Sievert, Case No. 17-10960-7 (10/27/2021) (634 B.R. 1030) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 10/27/2021

Case Summary:
After learning of a previously undisclosed, pre-petition personal injury claim and subsequent settlement award given to Debtor post-discharge, the United States Trustee moved to reopen a Debtor’s Chapter 7 case and appoint a trustee. Five months after the case was reopened, the Debtor amended her Summary of Assets and Liabilities, Schedule A/B, and Schedule C to disclose the lawsuit for the first time and claim an exemption for the personal liability award. The trustee objected to the claim of exemption as untimely, arguing that (1) Debtor should have known about the personal injury lawsuit when she filed for bankruptcy, as she responded to a TV advertisement and filled out a retainer agreement in connection with the lawsuit shortly before she filed for bankruptcy, and (2) there was substantial delay between the reopening of her bankruptcy and the date on which she filed the amendments. In response, Debtor said she was unaware she had a claim and did not intentionally fail to disclose the lawsuit. The Court found that while Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1009(a) provides a liberal right to file amended schedules, this right ends once a case is closed. As a result, a debtor seeking to amend schedules in a reopened case must request and establish cause for extending time to do so under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(1). The Court found that because Debtor neither asked for an extension of time to file her Amended Schedule C nor attempted to show excusable neglect for failing to disclose the asset or file an Amended Schedule C before her case had closed, the Trustee’s objection must be sustained.

Statute/Rule References:
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1009(a) -- General Right to Amend
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) -- Enlargement

Key Term:
Excusable Neglect

In re Klug, Case No. 21-10532-12 (09/16/2021) (633 B.R. 883) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 09/16/2021

Case Summary:
Joint Debtors filed a Chapter 12 petition. Later, they amended their summary of assets and liabilities as well as schedules A/B and C. The amendment detailed a claim of exemption in tools of the trade. The Debtors elected to use state exemptions, asserting a $27,500 exemption in tools of the trade under Wis. Stat. § 815.18(3)(b). Further, they sought to avoid a secured creditor’s (“Creditor”) lien on tools of the trade, arguing it impairs their exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B)(ii). Creditor objected to the avoidance action. Creditor argued that Wis. Stat. § 815.18(12) prohibits avoidance of a nonpossessory, non purchase-money security interest on tools of the trade as stated in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(3)(B), triggering the lien avoidance cap of $6,825 per debtor in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(3). The Debtors argued that neither subpart of § 522(f)(3) was met, making § 522(f)(3) inapplicable. Creditor argued that both subparts were met. The Court found that because Wis. Stat. § 815.18(12) does not explicitly prohibit avoidance of a nonpossessory, non purchase-money security interest on tools of the trade, the second subpart of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(3)(B) is not met and thus the Debtors could avoid Creditor’s lien to the full extent of the exemption available under Wis. Stat. § 815.18(3)(b).

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(3) -- Exemptions
Wis. Stat. § 815.18(3)(b) -- Business and Farm Property
Wis. Stat. § 815.18(12) -- Limitations on Exemptions

Key Terms:
Exemptions
Lien Avoidance

Travis P. Krizan and Ronald V. Krizan v. Beverly A. Krizan (In re Krizan), Adv. No. 20-00015, Case No. 20-10231-7 (07/15/2021) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 07/15/2021

Case Summary:  
Plaintiffs sought a determination that the debt owed to them is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Debtor opposed Plaintiff’s assertion and argued Plaintiffs were collaterally estopped. The Court found collateral estoppel was inapplicable. After a trial on the issue, the Court determined Debtor’s debt to Plaintiffs was nondischargeable because it was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) -- False pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud

Key Terms:
Nondischargeability

Travis P. Krizan and Ronald V. Krizan v. Dale A. Krizan (In re Krizan), Adv. No. 20-00016, Case No. 20-10232-7 (07/15/2021) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 07/15/2021

Case Summary:
Plaintiffs sought a determination that the debt owed to them is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Debtor opposed Plaintiff’s assertion and argued Plaintiffs were collaterally estopped. The Court found collateral estoppel was inapplicable. After a trial on the issue, the Court determined Debtor’s debt to Plaintiffs was dischargeable because Plaintiffs did not sufficiently establish Debtor’s participation in the fraudulent misrepresentation that led to incurring the debt.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) - False pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud

Key Terms:
Nondischargeability

Travis P. Krizan and Ronald V. Krizan v. Scott A. Krizan (In re Krizan), Adv. No. 20-00017, Case No. 20-10233-7 (07/15/2021) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 07/15/2021

Case Summary:
Plaintiffs sought a determination that the debt owed to them is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Debtor opposed Plaintiff’s assertion and argued Plaintiffs were collaterally estopped. The Court found collateral estoppel was inapplicable. After a trial on the issue, the Court determined Debtor’s debt to Plaintiffs was nondischargeable because it was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) - False pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud

Key Terms:
Nondischargeability

In re Henricks, Case No. 14-12042-7 (07/12/2021) (632 B.R. 744) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 07/12/2021

Case Summary:
Debtor sought contempt remedies for violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction related to the Government’s attempt to satisfy restitution owed by Debtor’s husband with sequestered property, tax refunds, and Debtor’s pension. The district court made determinations about Debtor’s interest in the property and returned to this Court for sanctions. Debtor argued the Government violated the automatic stay and discharge injunction when it sought to collect restitution from Debtor’s interest in property. Further, Debtor seeks sanctions for the Government’s refusal to release a lien on property she owns with her father. The Government contended its argument in district court, that Debtor had no legitimate interest in any of the tax refund or her retirement account, was not a violation of the automatic stay or discharge injunction. Further, the Government asserted its lien on the property at issue was proper. The Court found there was no violation of the automatic stay as to the sequestered property. The Court did find violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction in the Government’s pursuit of 100% of the tax refunds and 100% of Debtor’s pension. Further, the Court found the Government’s conduct relating to the lien on the property violated the discharge injunction.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 105 -- Powers of court
11 U.S.C. § 362(a) -- Automatic stay
11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) -- Automatic stay violation damages
11 U.S.C. § 524(a) -- Discharge injunction

Key Terms:
Automatic Stay
Contempt
Discharge Injunction
Taggart Standard

In re Cargill, Case No. 20-12261-7 (05/21/2021) -- Judge Catherine J. Furay 05/21/2021

Case Summary:
The United States Trustee brought a motion to examine an attorney’s fees and sought disgorgement of $800 due to counsel’s repeated failure to provide routinely provided documents in their entirety. Counsel disclosed compensation of $2,000 and asserted disgorgement was not appropriate and that the United States Trustee should not be allowed to “proscribe” counsel’s fees. Counsel provided the Court with time records. The Court ordered disgorgement of $800 finding counsel’s lack of attention to detail and poor communication with Debtor imperiled Debtor’s opportunity for a fresh start and discharge which warranted disgorgement of some of counsel’s fees. 

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 329 -- Debtor’s transactions with attorneys
11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) -- Compensation of professionals
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2017 -- Examination of Debtor’s Transactions with Debtor’s Attorney

Key Terms:
Disgorgement
Attorney Fees - reasonable compensation

Pages