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.

Judge Robert D. Martin

In re Jayners, Case No. 01-32642-7 (08/03/2010) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 08/03/2010

Case Summary:
The Debtor’s attorney applied for administrative expenses incurred as he pursued a state court cause of action that resulted in a small settlement for the estate.   The Chapter 7 Trustee objected and claimed he was entitled to the funds.  The Bankruptcy Court held that the attorney was entitled to only a partial recovery, since 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3) allows administrative expenses only of those who have made a “substantial contribution” to the estate.  The Court reasoned that the contribution could be substantial only if it yielded funds for unsecured creditors.  Accordingly, the Court ordered that half the proceeds be distributed to unsecured creditors, with the remaining half divided between the Debtor’s attorney and the Trustee.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)
11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)

Key Terms:
Administrative Expenses
Trustee Fees

Renew Energy, LLC v. Olsen’s Mill, Inc. (In re Renew Energy, LLC), Adv. No. 09-0154, Case No. 09-10491-11 (07/12/2010) (436 B.R. 112) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 07/12/2010

Case Summary:
In an adversary proceeding to avoid certain transfers as preferential, the Court found that all the elements of a preference had been proven.  However, the Creditor had a compete defense.  First, many of the transfers were made in the ordinary course as between the two parties.  Although the parties’ payment history was sui generis, they established a pattern where the Debtor would pay the Creditor in irregular amounts, by check or wire transfers, whenever it had funds available.  Those payments that fell outside the ordinary course were shielded by the new value defense, in that after the Debtor made the payments, the Creditor delivered at least as much grain on an unsecured basis.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 547(b) -- Preferences
11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2) -- Preferences
11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(4) -- Preferences
11 U.S.C. § 547(g) -- Preferences

Key Terms:
New Value
Ordinary Course
Preferences

In re Schmitz, Case No. 09-15320-11 (06/24/2010) (436 B.R. 110) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 06/24/2010

Case Summary:
The Debtors appealed a decision of the Bankruptcy Court to the District Court, and the opposing party moved to strike certain items from the appellate record.  The motion also objected to the Debtors’ designation of issues on appeal.  The Court held that it had jurisdiction to decide issues relating to the record on appeal, and denied the two motions.  Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006 does not permit an appellee to strike items from the record on appeal, although the Court agreed to transmit the disputed items to the District Court separately.  Further, Rule 8006 only permits an appellee to file a statement of issues on appeal if he has filed a cross-appeal.  Since no cross-appeal had been filed, the objection was denied.

Statute/Rule References:
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006

Key Terms:
Motion to Strike
Record on Appeal
Statement of Issues on Appeal

Whitefeather, et al. v. Ted and Christine Wiese (In re Wiese), Adv. No. 09-0149, Case No. 09-11460-7 (06/08/2010) (431 B.R. 456) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 06/08/2010

Case Summary:
Pro se Chapter 7 debtors failed to appear at a pretrial conference or file the required pretrial statement in an adversary proceeding.  The Court entered a default.  The Plaintiffs in the proceeding brought a motion for default judgment, but failed to properly serve the Debtors.  The Debtors failed to appear, and the judgment of default was granted.  The Debtors then retained counsel and sought to reopen their case to set aside the default judgment and entry of default.  The Court held that the default judgment was void, given the lack of notice to the Debtors.  But the Court refused to remove the entry of default, since the Debtors failed to show good cause.  Pro se litigants were not, the Court held, automatically entitled to more lenient treatment than other litigants.

Statute/Rule References:
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024

Key Terms:
Default
Default Judgment
Entry of Default

In re Thul-Theis, Case No. 09-15919-13 (06/07/2010) (431 B.R. 828) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 06/07/2010

Case Summary:
The Chapter 13 Debtor omitted a creditor from her schedules.   The Creditor got no official notice of the filing before the claims bar date, but did have actual notice of the filing from the Debtor.  Notwithstanding this actual notice, the Creditor filed a claim after the bar date.  The Chapter 13 Trustee refused to pay the claim.  The Court held that generally, late-filed claims are not allowed in a Chapter 13 case.  While there may be narrow circumstances where due process or equitable concerns require allowance, those circumstances were not present here because the Creditor had actual notice.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 502(a)(9)
11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(2)(c)
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c) -- Time for Filing Proof of Claim
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006 -- Time

Key Terms:
Actual Notice
Due Process
Late Filed Claim

In re Grede Foundries, Inc., Case No. 09-14337-11 (06/01/2010) (435 B.R. 593) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 06/01/2010

Case Summary:
Two utility providers moved for allowance of administrative priority claims under § 503(b)(9) for the value of electricity supplied in the ninety days pre-petition.  The Debtor objected, claiming that electricity was not a “good.”  The Court disagreed, and allowed the priority claim.  The Court applied the Uniform Commercial code’s definition of “goods” as all things moveable at the time of identification to the contract.  The Court found that the electricity was identified at the time it was metered at the Debtor’s plant, and that it was moveable both before and immediately after being metered.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9)
11 U.S.C. § 546(c) -- Right of Reclamation

Key Terms:
Administrative Priority
Electricity
Goods

County of La Crosse v. Adam K. Stevens and Heather K. Stevens (In re Stevens), Adv. No. 10-0019, Case No. 09-16401-7 (05/17/2010) (436 B.R. 107) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 05/17/2010

Case Summary:
The County initiated this adversary proceeding contending that a debt owed to it was non-dischargeable.  The debt consisted of fees incurred by a guardian ad litem and two other members of a custody assessment team in response to motions brought by the Debtor.  The Court held that the debt was a non-dischargeable domestic support obligation under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).  Because state law charged the members of the custody team with a duty to act in the best interest of the child, fees they incur would almost inevitably be domestic support obligations.  Only if the Debtor could show a total lack of nexus between the activities and the support of a child might the fees be dischargeable.  Since the Debtor failed to make that showing, the fees could not be discharged.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(a)
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) -- Nondischargeability - Divorce Decrees
Wis. Stat. § 767.405(14)
Wis. Stat. § 767.406(4)

Key Terms:
Domestic Support Obligation
Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)
Non-Dischargeable Debt

In re LaLonde, Case No. 08-14761-13 (05/07/2010) (431 B.R. 199) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 05/07/2010

Case Summary:
The Debtor filed Chapter 7, then converted to Chapter 13 when the Trustee pursued preference avoidance actions.  The Chapter 7 Trustee then objected to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan, arguing that it failed to meet the best interests test because of the potential yield of avoidance actions in a Chapter 7.  The Court held that the plan failed to meet the best interests test, because the Chapter 7 Trustee was reasonably likely to have avoided certain transfers as preferential.  The Court also held, however, that the Trustee was not reasonably likely to have sold certain property, since the Debtor held it in a constructive trust.  Further, the Court found no violation of the requirement that a plan be proposed in good faith.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 547(b) -- Preferences
11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1) -- Preferences
11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1) -- Preferences
11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3)
11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4)
Fed. R. Bankr. P. Rule 4003(c) -- Exemptions - Burden of Proof

Key Terms:
Best Interests
Constructive Trust
Good Faith
Joint Tenancy
Plan Confirmation
Preferences

In re Tarbell, Case No. 09-12570-13 (04/16/2010) (431 B.R. 826) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 04/16/2010

Case Summary:
The Chapter 13 Debtor omitted the IRS as a creditor from his schedules. The Creditor got no official notice of the filing before the claims bar date, but filed a late claim once the Debtor discovered the omission. The Chapter 13 Trustee refused to pay the claim. The Court held that while late-filed claims are generally not allowed in a Chapter 13 case, there may be narrow circumstances where due process or equitable concerns require allowance. The time limits in the Bankruptcy Code implicitly assume that a creditor has been given notice in some form. Since the IRS had no notice before the bar date, its claim would be allowed.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 502(a)(9)
11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(2)(c)
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c) -- Time for Filing Proof of Claim
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006 -- Time

Key Terms:
Actual Notice
Due Process
Late Filed Claim

Michael Kepler v. Paul Springer (In re Dailey), Adv. No. 09-0169, Case No. 09-14098 (03/10/2010) (2010 WL 1006938) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 03/15/2010

Case Summary:
The Chapter 7 Trustee brought a preference avoidance action. The Defendant orally agreed to guarantee a debt the Debtor, owed to a third party. This guarantee was made gratuitously and orally, as a favor to his friend. When the Debtor’s payment failed to clear, the Defendant paid the obligation on the Debtor’s behalf. The Debtor then repaid the Defendant. The Trustee sought to avoid those repayments. The parties agreed that the elements of a preference were present. The Court found no defense under § 547(c) applied, in that the guarantee was outside the ordinary course for each man. Further, there was no contemporaneous exchange for new value. When the Debtor repaid the Defendant, he received no new value in exchange, just cancellation of an antecedent debt.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 547(a)(2) -- Preferences
11 U.S.C. § 547(b) -- Preferences
11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1) -- Preferences
11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2) -- Preferences

Key Terms:
Contemporaneous Exchange for New Value
New Value
Ordinary Course
Preferences

Pages