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 Robert D. Martin

William J. Rameker, Trustee v. Farmers State Bank (In re Lynch), Adv. No. 03-0227, Case No. 03-16698-7 (07/27/2004) (313 B.R. 798) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 07/27/2004

Case Summary:
Trustee filed complaint against Defendant alleging that its financing statement was defective in that it didn't describe the collateral sufficiently. The General Business Security Agreement used to secure the business note contained a description of the collateral, but when the Defendant sought to perfect its security interest in the personal property by filing a UCC-1 financing statement, the collateral was described as the collateral covered as "general business security agreement now owned or hereinafter acquired." No documents were attached to the financing statement. Under Wisconsin law the description of personal property is sufficient if it reasonably identifies what is described. What is reasonable is putting third parties on inquiry notice to allow them to identify what property has a lien against it. It was determined that the description in this case failed to put third parties on notice as to which property of the Debtor was subject to the Defendant's security interest and that judgment may be ordered for the Trustee.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
Wis. Stat. § 409.102(cs) -- Definitions
Wis. Stat. § 409.108(1) -- Sufficiency of Description
Wis. Stat. § 409.310 -- When Filing Required to Perfect Security Interest
Wis. Stat. § 409.502 (1)(c) -- Sufficiency of Financing Statement
Wis. Stat. § 409.504 -- Indication of Collateral
Wis. Stat. § 409.506 -- Effect of Errors or Omissions

Key Terms:
Financing Statements - Perfection
Security Interests - Perfection

In re Strong, Case No. 04-10356-13 (07/19/2004) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 07/19/2004

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) -- Modification of Rights of Secured Claimants
11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(1)
17 U.S.C. § 362 -- Automatic Stay
Wis. Stat. § 846.10
Wis. Stat. § 846.101
Wis. Stat. § 846.102
Wis. Stat. § 846.103
Wis. Stat. § 846.13
Wis. Stat. § 846.17

Key Terms:
De-acceleration of Mortgage
Foreclosure Sale
Redemption

Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc. v. Michael E. Kepler, Trustee, et al. (In Re Media Properties, Inc., Puri Family Limited Partnership and Puri, LLC), Adv. No. 03-0128, Case No. 01-34476-7 (05/25/2004) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 05/25/2004

Case Summary:
After the prerogatives exclusive to the FCC were carved out, there remained an interest in the proceeds generated from the sale of the FCC license in which Foothill held a perfected security interest. When the license was sold, the existing security was liquidated and proceeds were generated. It was ordered that the proceeds from the sale of the license be distributed to Foothill.

Statute/Rule References:
13 U.S.C. § 552 -- Postpetition Effect of Security Interest
47 U.S.C. § 301 -- Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs - License for Radio Communications or Transmission of Energy
47 U.S.C. § 304 -- Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs - Waiver by License of Claims to Particular Frequency of Electromagnetic Spectrum
47 U.S.C. § 310(d) -- Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs - License Ownership Restrictions - Assignment and Transfer of Construction Permit or Station License
UCC 9-102(42) -- Definitions and Index of Definitions - "General Intangible"
UCC 9-203(g) -- Attachment and Enforceability of Security Interest - Proceeds - Supporting Obligations - Formal Requisite - Lien Securing Right to Payment

Key Terms:
After-Acquired Property
Broadcasting Licenses
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
General Intangibles
Intangible Property
License
Proceeds
Property Right
Security Interests - "Giving Value"
Security Interests - Attachment
Security Interests - Proceeds

In re Hanson, Case No. 03-12010-13 (04/21/2004) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 04/21/2004

Case Summary:
The Debtors filed a Chapter 13 plan which provided for the Debtors to make direct monthly payments to the Department of Education on their student loans. The Department of Education consented to a reduced payment on the student loans “to enhance the feasibility of the plan.” The Trustee objected to the plan on the grounds that the plan unfairly discriminated against a class of unsecured creditors and that the plan proposed direct payments to the Department of Education in an amount less than that called for by the pre-bankruptcy contract.

The Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was not confirmed. It was determined that the Debtors’ plan failed to comply with 11 U.S.C. §1322(b)(5) and failed to demonstrate that its treatment of the Department of Education claim was not unfair discrimination between classed of unsecured claims. Furthermore, it was determined that the direct payment to the Department of Education was impermissible.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1)
11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5)

Key Terms:
Claims - Classes
Direct Payments
Discharge 
Long-Term Debt
Maintenance of Payments
Specificity of Statute
Student Loans

In re Henderson, Case No. 03-12802-13 (02/27/2004) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 02/27/2004

Case Summary:
The Debtor held a one-third tenancy in common in farmland where he resided. Alliance Bank received judgment against the Debtor and subsequently held an execution sale on the property, purchasing debtor’s interest in the real estate. Debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy one year later, claiming a homestead exemption of $1.00 for the property. Debtor proposed to sell a portion of the property to fund his Chapter 13 plan. Alliance objected to the plan contending that the Debtor had no interest in the real estate. Debtor also moved to avoid the judicial liens of Alliance, and Alliance objected.

The Debtor did not oppose the execution sale up to and through its execution, nor did he assert an exempt homestead claim. After the sale took place but prior to his bankruptcy filing, Debtor then filed a motion in circuit court challenging the execution sale. The Circuit Court declined to hear the motion stating without written ruling or order that it had no power to hear a post-execution sale argument.

An evidentiary hearing was then held on the confirmation of the plan, the Debtor’s motion to avoid the lien of Alliance, and Alliance’s objection to the claimed homestead exemption. Those issues were taken under advisement.

It was determined that the execution sale was voided and the lien held by Alliance be reduced by the $1.00 claimed exemption. The plan was not confirmed. Debtor was given 20 days to amend the plan. Alliance then moved for relief from stay. It was determined that because the proposed plan could not be confirmed, the property was not necessary to Debtor’s effective reorganization. The debtor had not provided adequate protection of Alliance’s interest in the property. The stay was lifted to conduct a new execution sale or pursue the lien consistent with the memorandum decision.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 101(37) -- Definitions - "lien"
11 U.S.C. § 108 -- Extension of Time
11 U.S.C. § 522(d) -- Exemptions - Federal
11 U.S.C. § 522(f) -- Lien Avoidance
11 U.S.C. § 522(g) -- Exemptions
11 U.S.C. § 522(h) -- Exemptions
11 U.S.C. § 541 -- Property of the Estate
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
11 U.S.C. § 1303 -- Rights and Powers of Debtor
11 U.S.C. § 1325 -- Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1009 -- Amendment of Petition and Schedules
Wis. Stat. § 815.21 -- Homestead; How to Set Apart After Levy
Wis. Stat. § 815.39 -- Execution Sale; Redemption of Real Estate
Wis. Stat. § 815.40 -- Execution Sale; Who May Redeem
Wis. Stat. § 815.55 -- Execution Sale; Deed When to Issue; Limitation

Key Terms:
Homestead Exemption
Judicial Liens
Lien Avoidance
Execution Sale
Redemption
res judicata

In re Hanson, Case No. 92-13751-13 (12/12/2003) (306 B.R. 241) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/12/2003

Case Summary:
The Debtor filed a Chapter 13 plan in November 1992. Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation, a predecessor to movant Educational Credit Management Corporation, then filed an unsecured claim in the amount of $31,530.08 for educational loans made between 1981 through 1987 to the Debtor. The plan was completed in 1997. A discharge of Debtor’s debts was entered using an outdated discharge order form which did not accurately reflect the law regarding the dischargeability of student loans. The case was reopened and Educational Credit Management Corporation filed its motion to reconsider the discharge order. It was determined that the discharge order was incorrect and misstated the law. Those portions of the order were ruled void and a new discharge order was entered in the form currently in use.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) -- Nondischargeability - Student Loans
11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) -- Discharge

Key Terms:
Student Loans

In re Duoss, Case No. 00-34080-7 (08/28/2003) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 08/28/2003

Case Summary:
The Debtor is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School who began her study of law at Marquette University School of Law (“Marquette”). In her application for admission to the Wisconsin bar, she was required to present a transcript from Marquette. Marquette conditioned its delivery of a transcript upon Debtor’s payment of past due student loans. Debtor had yet to pay Marquette or to receive her Marquette transcript and brought a motion to hold Marquette in violation of her bankruptcy discharge injunction.

As part of her student loan package at Marquette, Debtor signed a promissory note under which Marquette disbursed funds toward tuition costs, and to the Debtor directly. After receiving the loan funds and prior to the “drop deadline,” Debtor withdrew from Marquette. Marquette reversed the tuition charge leaving Debtor owing the amount paid to her directly. Marquette received one nominal payment from the Debtor in April 1999. After receiving no further payments, the account was turned over to a collection agency.

Debtor filed a Chapter 7 petition in September 2000. She included the debt to Marquette on her schedules designating it as “tuition.” The collection agency ceased its collection efforts. In January 2001 Debtor received her discharge.

Debtor contends that her debt to Marquette was not a student loan and that it had been discharged. She argued that Marquette was violating the permanent injunction provision of 11 U.S.C. § 524(a). She is incorrect. Marquette is subrogated to the government entities which it reimbursed for Debtor’s student loans, and its methods of collecting from Debtor are unexceptionable as a matter of bankruptcy law.

It was determined that Marquette complied with the requirements established by the U.S. Department of Education with respect to the loans made to Debtor. As a subrogee, Marquette was entitled to all of the U.S. Department of Education’s rights against the Debtor, including the right to collect the non-dischargeable loan. Marquette was not required to release the transcripts to Debtor. Debtor’s arguments based upon Marquette’s subsequent characterization of the funds owed to it by Debtor are of no merit. The true nature of the obligation, not how it was described after it became past due, governs how the obligation is viewed in bankruptcy.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) -- Nondischargeability - Student Loans
11 U.S.C. § 524(a)
34 CFR § 668.22(g) and (g)(2) -- Treatment of Title IV Funds when a Student Withdraws
34 CFR § 685.300 -- Agreements Between an Eligible School and the Secretary for Participation in the Direct Loan Program
34 CFR § 685.306 -- Payment of a Refund or Return of Title IV, HEA Program Funds to the Secretary

Key Terms:
Academic Transcript
Administrative Expenses
Discharge
Equitable Subordination
Student Loans

In re J.P. Hering Distributing Company, Inc., Case No. 02-16113-11 and In re Quality Beverages of Wisconsin, Inc., Case No. 02-16114-11 (06/04/2003) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 06/04/2003

Case Summary:
In March 2003 this Court issued a memorandum decision and judgment awarding Plaintiff, Western Wisconsin Water, Inc. d/b/a La Crosse Premium Water (“Western”) damages against the Defendant, Quality Beverages of Wisconsin, Inc. (“Quality”) for Quality’s breach of contract to give Western a first right of refusal to acquire certain accounts. In mitigating its damages, Western recovered 400 of the 552 accounts that Quality should have offered. Western was awarded sums for lost profits based on the 152 accounts that Western did not recover and in mitigation expenses.

Western moved to amend the judgment on two theories. First, Western argued that profits from the resale of the 400 accounts that it recovered should have been included in its damages because the market for the accounts evaporated after Quality’s actions. Western stated that it showed that it could resell the 400 accounts. They further argued that the court should add to Western’s damages the difference between the value of all 552 accounts before Quality’s breach and the value of the 400 accounts recovered after Quality’s breach.

Second, Western contended that its mitigation expenses were higher than the estimated net profit Western would have realized in the future from its mitigation efforts and produced exhibits detailing its actual out-of-pocket expense in establishing its own distributorship.

Western’s first claim amounted to a request for damages that Western did not make successfully at trial. Western sought the profits that it claimed it could not realize from the resale of the recovered accounts because of the effects of Quality’s actions on the market. At trial, however, Western did not establish that Quality’s actions affected the market in the manner and to the extent claimed. Western also failed to demonstrate that the expected net profit is in fact the market price. It was determined that the potential windfall of retaining the recovered accounts and receiving the profits from the resale of the recovered accounts is inconsistent with Wisconsin’s application of the expectation interest in breaches of contract.

As to Western’s second claim, it was determined that mitigation damages in a breach of contract are an injured party’s actual expenditures made in reasonable efforts to minimize its losses. In arguing its motion, some confusion arose as to Western’s reference to its “net mitigation amount” and to its “startup costs”. It appears that a manifest factual error had been made and Western’s claimed actual cost of mitigation incurred

Statute/Rule References:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 -- New Trials

Key Terms:
Breach of Contract
Expectation Interest
First Right of Refusal
Lost Profits
Mitigate Damages

Judge Thomas S. Utschig

Barry R. Shear, Trustee for PSI Industries v. Carol Seminara, et al. (In re PSI Industries, Inc.) Adv. No. 01-3075, Case No. 99-33737-11 (11/05/2003) (306 B.R. 377) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 11/05/2003

Case Summary:
Liquidating trustee of corporate debtor brought an action against the debtor’s former officers and directors, alleging that they “looted” the company of millions of dollars through a variety of fraudulent schemes. The court found that the evidence established a pattern of activity designed to “hinder, delay, or defraud” creditors, and that the CEO of the company was demonstrably responsible for looting the company’s assets. The trustee failed to present sufficient evidence regarding the other officers and directors.

In re Jeanne Eliane Farmer, Case 02-16039-7 (06/18/2003) (295 B.R. 322) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 06/18/2003

Case Summary:
Debtor was entitled to an exemption for retirement funds received pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order executed in accordance with the debtor’s divorce decree. The funds were held in an “ERISA-qualified” pension plan and therefore excluded from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate; even if it were part of the bankruptcy estate, it fell within the Wisconsin exemption for retirement assets.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 541 -- Property of the Estate 

Key Terms:
Property of the Estate

Pages