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

Claire Ann Resop, Trustee v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank (In re McClearn), Adv. No. 06-0202, Case No. 04-17344-7 (05/15/2007) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 05/15/2007

Case Summary:
Noncompliance with Wisconsin's homestead joinder requirement was not grounds for avoidance by a chapter 7 trustee, even though the mortgage was "invalid." The protections for bona fide purchasers of real estate in Wisconsin provide no protection against the spouse of a prior transferor of real estate for five years after the prior transfer. Section 544(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code only grants the trustee the rights of a bona fide purchaser of real estate. Section 544, Wis. Stats. 706.02(1)(f), 706.09(1)(e).

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
Wis. Stat. § 706.02(1)(f)
Wis. Stat. § 706.09(1)(e)

Key Terms:
Dismissal

Airadigm Communications, Inc., Case No 06-10930-11 (05/11/2007) (376 B.R. 903) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 05/11/2007

Case Summary:
A creditor's claim was allowed because no grounds were stated for its disallowance. A claim can be disallowed under section 502(b) or reconsidered under section 502(j). There is no such theory of disallowance as "recharacterization" pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court granted summary judgment in part, overruling the objection to a secured creditor's claim in a Chapter 11 case.

In re Long, Case No. 06-13340-13 (05/10/2007) (372 B.R. 467) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 05/10/2007

Case Summary:
A Chapter 13 Debtor with above-median income was permitted to deduct the full ownership expense on Official Form B22C even though the Debtor had encumbered both cars with one vehicle loan.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1325 -- Confirmation of Chapter 13 plan

Key Terms:
Confirmation - Chapter 13

Michael E. Kepler, Trustee v. Lisa A. Koch, et al. (In re Kirchner), Adv. No. 06-0039, Case No. 05-14404-7 (03/09/2007) (372 B.R. 459) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 03/09/2007

Case Summary:
A Chapter 7 Debtor who had held title to his parents' house and transferred it to his siblings for no consideration had made a fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Although he was holding the title for his parents' benefit, he was not holding it in trust for them, and nothing entitled them to an equitable lien against the property. All the elements of a UFTA claim having been met, the Chapter 7 Trustee was entitled to turnover of the property.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 506(d) -- Lien Valuation and Strip Down
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
Wis. Stat. § 242 -- Fraudulent Conveyance

Key Terms:
Equitable Liens
Fraudulent Transfer
Lien Stripping
Summary Judgment
Turnover of Property

In re Otteman, Case No. 02-10332-7 (11/08/2006) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 11/08/2006
Airadigm Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (In re Airadigm Communications, Inc.), Adv. No. 06-0155, Case No. 06-10930-11 (10/27/2006) (372 B.R. 894) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 10/27/2006

Judge Thomas S. Utschig

In re Kogler, Case No. 06-12027-7 (03/30/2007) (368 B.R. 785) – Judge Thomas S. Utschig 03/30/2007

Case Summary:
The United States Trustee brought a motion to dismiss based on the “presumption of abuse” found in 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2). The debtors argued that the presumption of abuse did not apply because the debtors’ deductions, including deductions for secured debt, indicated that they had no disposable income. At issue were deductions for a home and a vehicle that the debtors proposed to surrender. The Court ruled that § 707(b)(2) contemplated a “snapshot” review of the debtors’ finances as of the petition date, and that the debtors were entitled to deduct secured debt which was contractually due as of that date regardless of their subsequent intentions toward the collateral. Consequently, the motion was denied.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 707 -- Dismissal

Bremer Bank, N.A. v. Joy Ann Wyss and Scott Duane Wyss (In re Wyss), Adv. No. 04-0276, Case No. 04-16465-7 (09/27/2006) (355 B.R. 130) – Judge Thomas S. Utschig 09/27/2006

Case Summary:
Creditor sought determination that its claims against the debtors were nondischargeable. The creditor alleged that the debtors had misrepresented the existence of certain accounts receivable which served as the borrowing base of a line of credit. The court found that, under the facts of the case, the debtors’ loan obligation was not a factoring arrangement but a capital loan. The debtors did not “obtain” an extension of credit from the plaintiff through the use of the allegedly fraudulent borrowing base certificates. At most, the certificates induced the creditor to forbear collection activities, but it did not surrender or lose any legal rights as a result of its reliance on the documents. The debtors also did not engage in fraud in a fiduciary capacity or harm any property interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s claim was discharged.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud in Fiduciary Capacity
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) -- Nondischargeability - Willful and Malicious Injury

William T. Neary, Trustee v. Wendy Jean McKittrick (In re McKittrick) Adv. No. 06-0116, Case No. 06-10071-7 (08/24/2006) (349 B.R. 569) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 08/24/2006

Case Summary:
Debtor previously filed bankruptcy in 1998, and refiled in January 2006, shortly after the effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The U.S. Trustee objected to the debtor’s discharge, contending that the debtor was not eligible to receive one under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(8), which as amended extended the period between chapter 7 discharges to eight years. The Court found that the debtor did not have a substantive right to receive a discharge within six years of her prior filing. As the bankruptcy amendments only affected her ability to prospectively file bankruptcy, she was subject to the statutory terms in effect when she filed the new case. Consequently, the debtor’s discharge was denied.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C.§ 727 -- Discharge

Gustavo Adolfo Manzanares v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (In re Manzanares) Adv. No. 05-1185, Case No. 04-10876-7 (5/24/2006) (345 B.R. 773) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 05/24/2006

Case Summary:
The debtor filed an adversary proceeding against State Farm for a violation of the discharge injunction. At the time of the debtor’s bankruptcy, State Farm’s subrogation unit had two lawsuits pending against the debtor; both lawsuits stemmed from the same automobile accident. State Farm was represented by different law firms in each action. One law firm was clearly notified of the bankruptcy, and forwarded that notice to State Farm’s collection/subrogation unit. An agent in the subrogation unit thereafter directed the dismissal of that lawsuit; the other lawsuit, however, was not dismissed. The lawyer for State Farm thereafter obtained a judgment against the debtor and had the debtor’s driver’s license suspended.

The court concluded that State Farm had actual knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy, and that the second claim had been discharged in the debtor’s bankruptcy. The court also found that the insurer was responsible for a willful violation of the discharge injunction when it failed to supervise the attorney acting as its agent or to notify him of the pending bankruptcy. The debtor was awarded $66,629.66 for lost wages, emotional distress, and the discomfort and costs associated with the loss of his driver’s license for almost six months.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C § 524 -- Discharge Injunction

Pages