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.

Available Decisions:

  • Chief Judge Catherine J. Furay -- 2013 - present
  • Judge William V. Altenberger -- 2016 - present
  • Judge Rachel M. Blise -- 2021 - present
  • Judge William H. Frawley -- 1973 - 1986
  • Judge G. Michael Halfenger -- 2020 - present
  • Judge Beth E. Hanan -- 2023 - present
  • Judge Brett H. Ludwig -- 2017 - 2020
  • Judge Thomas M. Lynch -- 2018 - present
  • Judge Robert D. Martin -- 1990 - 2016
  • Judge Katherine M. Perhach -- 2020 - present
  • Judge Thomas S. Utschig -- 1986 - 2012

Judge Thomas S. Utschig

Marika Tolz, Trustee v. Robert M. Prestwood, Colleen M Prestwood a/k/a Colleen Murphy, and Lauren Financial Services Inc. (In re Prestwood), Adv. No. 03-6609, Case No. 02-23764-BKC-PGH-7 (02/09/2005) (322 B.R. 463) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 02/09/2005

Case Summary:
Debtor was entitled to claim Florida homestead exemption over objection of trustee. Trustee contended that the debtor was not a Florida resident and had instead claimed a California property as his residence. Notwithstanding conflicting testimony about the status of the Florida home as a “vacation property,” the court found that the debtor did reside in Florida and had intended to remain in Florida but for marital discord over the issue.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(d) -- Exemptions - Federal

Lerneda J. Blossfield v. Todd Alan Blossfield and Maria Isabel Blossfield (In re Blossfield), Ave. No. 04-0103, Case No. 04-10802-7 (12/23/2004) (321 B.R. 913) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 12/23/2004

Case Summary:
Debtor acquired homestead property from his mother. At the time of the transfer, the parties contemplated that the mother would have a life estate in the home and that she would be able to live in the home. The debtor subsequently mortgaged the home and in so doing a new deed was recorded which did not contain the “life estate” provision of the old deed. While the debtor indicated he had his mother’s consent to terminate the life estate interest, she denied discussing it with him. The court found that the debtor did not have consent and that the destruction of the life estate interest constituted a “willful and malicious injury” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) -- Nondischargeability - Willful and Malicious Injury

Judge Robert D. Martin

Ronald Holzhueter, et al. v. Gary E. Zinck (In re Zinck), Adv. No. 04-0057, Case No. 03-18909-7 (02/08/2005) (321 B.R. 916) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 02/08/2005

Case Summary:
Success in a section 523(a)(2)(A) adversary proceeding requires that the Plaintiff prove the five elements of fraud. The Plaintiffs waived their fraud claims for any transaction before July 1999, but the Court examined the merits of those claims nonetheless. The Debtor, who owned a large amount of the subject stock, failed to disclose to the Plaintiffs his relationship with the corporation's insider, and that he was selling the stock away from his employing investment company. Even if the Plaintiffs' pre-1999 claims had not been time barred, those claims would have failed. The Debtor's omissions were immaterial to the plaintiffs, and under the unique facts in this case the Plaintiffs were following the Debtors lead and not his credentials when they bought the stock. The debtor also lacked the intent to deceive. The evidence indicated that the Debtor sincerely believed that he was letting his friends in on a great deal. The Plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate that they justifiably relied on the Debtor's false statements. The Plaintiffs never read the disclosure statements which were accurate assessments of the risk involved. As for the 1999 transaction, the Plaintiffs had all of the information, and received no false information from the Debtor upon which to rely.

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
Wis. Stat. § 893.93

Key Terms:
Fraud

In re Moore, Case No. 04-14434-7 (12/08/2004) (318 B.R. 679) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/08/2004

Case Summary:
Where spouses are jointly liable for prepetition debt, but only husband files bankruptcy, wife's individual property remains available to satisfy the debt.  Actions by creditors against wife to separate wife's individual property from the couple's community property, which is protected by the section 524 discharge injunction, do not violate the discharge injunction.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 362 -- Automatic Stay
11 U.S.C. § 524(a)
11 U.S.C. § 541 -- Property of the Estate
Wis. Stat. § 766.001

Key Terms:
Automatic Stay
Discharge 
Marital Property

In re Carr, Case No. 03-10182-13 (11/30/2004) (318 B.R. 517) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 11/30/2004

Case Summary:
Where secured lender, whose rights were modified by the plan in violation of section 1322(b)(2) failed to object to plan confirmation, and the plan was confirmed without objection, moves to vacate the plan as in violation of section 1325(a)(5), the plan must be vacated.  In the 7th Circuit, following Matter of Escobedo, a plan that violates the code is a nullity, and is properly vacated despite the creditor's failure to object, and despite section 1330 apparently allowing vacation of a plan only for fraud.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 101(51)
11 U.S.C. § 502 -- Allowance of Claims
11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(2)
11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) -- Modification of Rights of Secured Claimants
11 U.S.C. § 1325 -- Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan
11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)
11 U.S.C. § 1330
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f)

Key Terms:
Confirmation - Chapter 13

David and Christina Crawley v. Aurora Loan Services and Fieldstone Mortgage Co. (In re Crawley), Adv. No. 03-0152, Case No. 03-15105-13 (11/24/2004) (318 B.R. 512) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 11/24/2004

Case Summary:
In Chapter 13 case where creditor bank failed to record a mortgage, and trustee did not avoid the mortgage, debtor sought to use trustee's section 544(a)(3) avoiding power.  Held, the Debtor in Chapter 13 may use only the Trustee's powers as enumerated in section 1303.  Because the Trustee's section 544 lien-avoiding power is not one of the enumerated powers available to the Debtor, the Debtor may not avoid a mortgage under section 544.  Further held, equitable subrogation is not a remedy available to a lender who fails to record a mortgage even though the loan was used to consolidate previous mortgage loans.  The mortgage lender gets security in the form of a recordable mortgage, and the Court will not invoke equitable subrogation to cure a lender's negligence.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 506(c) -- Recovery of Expenses in Disposing or Preserving Property
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
11 U.S.C. § 545
11 U.S.C. § 548 -- Fraudulent Conveyance
11 U.S.C. § 1303 -- Rights and Powers of Debtor
Wis. Stat. § 706.08(a)
Wis. Stat. § 708.01

Key Terms:
Lien Avoidance
Equitable Subordination
Summary Judgment

McAdams, Inc. et al. v Marie H. Barsamian (In re Barsamian), Adv. Nos. 03-0053, 03-0054, 03-0055, 03-0056, 03-0057 and 03-0058, Case No. 02-18048-7 (11/03/2004) (318 B.R. 508) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 11/03/2004

Case Summary:
Plaintiffs, six businesses, filed complaints alleging nondischargeability of debts under section 523(a)(2)(A) for writing checks that bounced.  Defendants' attorney failed to appear at the hearing, and the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.  Defendant's attorney moved the Court to reopen the adversary proceeding, and simultaneously moved the Court for a default judgment against the debtor.  The Court granted the motion to reopen under the excusable neglect theory.  Defendants were less fortunate on their default motion.  A check is not a representation, writing a check that bounces is not fraud, and the Court would not default a debtor without proof of specific false representations or fraud.  The Court gave the Defendants 30 days from the date of the decision to request a prove-up hearing.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) -- Relief from a Judgment Order
Wis. Stat. § 943.21
Wis. Stat. § 943.24

Key Terms:
Excusable Neglect
Fraud
Non-Dischargeable Debt

Pirates Hyjacked Robbed and Stole Everything, Inc. v. State Fair Exposition Center, Inc. (In re Pirates Hyjacked Robbed and Stole Everything, Inc.), Adv. No. 04-0117, Case No. 04-12017-11 (10/27/2004) (318 B.R. 502) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 10/27/2004

Case Summary:
On Defendant's motion for summary judgment following denial of its motion to dismiss, the Court held that there was no contract between the parties. It was incontrovertible that Plaintiff had not paid consideration to defendant for the years 2003 to 2006. Therefore, there was no part performance by Plaintiff to create a contract. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Statute/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 241.02(1)(a)

Key Terms:
Summary Judgment
Contract

Mark D. Wedeward, Plaintiff v. Christine Ellen Weaver (In re Weaver), Adv. No. 04-0097, Case No. 04-10807-7 (09/29/2004) (316 B.R. 705) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 09/29/2004

Case Summary:
Ex-husband brought adversary proceeding to establish nondischargeability of marital debts pursuant to section 523(a)(5). The Court, Judge Robert Martin, held that Matter of Woods, 561 F.2d 27, 29 (7th Cir. 1977) established that, while the nature of the obligation is ultimately a bankruptcy court issue, if the intentions of the parties and the divorce court are clear, there is no need to consult state law to determine whether an obligation is in the nature of maintenance, alimony, or support or part of a property settlement. Nichols v. Nichols, 469 N.W. 2d 619, 625 (Wis. 1991) provides that there is nothing to prevent divorcing parties from specifically waiving maintenance and making up disparities in financial positions by assigning and assuming responsibility for marital debts, thereby keeping as part of support what otherwise might be characterized as a property settlement.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) -- Nondischargeability - Divorce Decrees
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) -- Nondischargeability - Marital Obligations

Key Terms:
Divorce Decrees - Maintenance or Property Division
Non-Dischargeable Debt

Pirates Hyjacked Robbed and Stole Everything, Inc. v. State Fair Exposition Center, Inc. (In re Pirates Hyjacked Robbed and Stole Everything, Inc.), Adv. No. 04-117, Case No. 04-12017-11 (08/19/2004) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 08/19/2004

Case Summary:
The Defendant answered and separately moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding to enforce a contract because Plaintiff failed to allege a writing which satisfied the statute of frauds. Plaintiff contracted with the Defendant to promote and hold trade shows. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that it entered into a licensing agreement with Defendant for use of the venue for the years 2003 to 2012 and Defendant refused to honor the contract. Plaintiff alleges that it paid consideration to defendant for the years 2003 to 2006. Plaintiff requests that Defendant be enjoined from honoring any other leases it may have made and honor Plaintiff's alleged contract. It was determined that Plaintiff can prove sufficient facts to support claims that they are entitled to relief. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

Statute/Rule References:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
Wis. Stat. § 241.02(1)(a)

Key Terms:
Summary Judgment
Contract

Pages