Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 105 -- Power of Court
28 U.S.C. § 1927 -- Counsel's Liability for Excessive Costs
Key Terms:
Attorney Fees
Sanctions
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
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 551 -- Automatic Preservation of Avoided Transfer
Key Terms:
Lien Avoidance
Case Summary:
Debtors claimed a tax refund as exempt. The IRS sought to setoff its tax claim against the refund. The Court concluded that the debtors’ discharge did not impact the creditor’s right to setoff under 11 U.S.C. § 553. The Court also concluded that the right of setoff exists, even against property the debtors claim as exempt.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(c) -- Exemptions - As Against Federal Tax Liens
11 U.S.C. § 553 -- Setoff
Key Terms:
Exemptions - Federal Tax Lien
Setoff
Case Summary:
Creditor mailed claim prior to claims bar date but it was not received until after the bar date expired. The trustee objected and sought to classify the claim as a "tardily filed claim" under 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(3). The Court rejected use of the "mailbox rule" and held that there was no issue as to receipt of the claim. Since filing constitutes delivery and receipt by the proper party, the proof of claim was filed after the bar date. The trustee’s objection to the claim was sustained.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(3) -- Late Filed Claims
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c) -- Time for Filing Proof of Claim
Key Terms:
Claims - Late Filed
Mailbox Rule
Presumption of Receipt
Case Summary:
The trustee brought this adversary proceeding asking the court to find (1) that the debtor's right to recover damages in a wrongful death action were property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a); (2) that the debtor is required to turnover the settlement proceeds and the property he purchased with the proceeds under 11 U.S.C. § 542(a); and (3) that the debtor's discharge should be revoked pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(2). The court (Judge Martin) ruled that under Illinois law, the debtor had an interest in the wrongful death action brought for the death of his mother. This interest became property of the estate upon the filing of the debtor's bankruptcy. Because the debtor never scheduled this interest, it remained property of the estate even after the debtor's bankruptcy case was closed. The court further entered a judgment against the debtor for the amount of the wrongful death proceeds received by the debtor but not turned over to the bankruptcy estate. Finally, the court revoked the debtor's discharge pursuant to § 727(d)(2) because it was more probable than not that the debtor possessed fraudulent intent while failing to report and deliver the settlement proceeds to the trustee.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 541 -- Property of the Estate
11 U.S.C. § 542 -- Turnover of Property
11 U.S.C. § 727 -- Discharge
Key Terms:
Discharge
Property of the Estate
Turnover of Property
Case Summary:
Travelers Indemnity Co. and the Debtor entered into a surety agreement and a workout agreement. The workout agreement provided that the Debtor would sell its real estate and pay the proceeds to Travelers. Travelers commenced a state court action against the Debtor seeking payment, and the state court allowed the sale of the last real estate asset owned by the Debtor but required the net proceeds from the sale be held in two joint bank accounts in the names of Travelers and the Debtor until further order of the Court. After the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief, the Trustee brought this adversary proceeding to compel turnover of the funds in those accounts. Travelers filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Trustee filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court granted Travelers' motion and denied the Trustee's. The Court found that the state court's injunction order was akin to a pre-judgment attachment. Therefore, under the injunction order, Travelers was placed in the position of a pre-judgment attachment creditor who had levied on and "caught" the proceeds from the sale of the debtor's last real estate asset. Under Wisconsin law, the attaching creditor is treated as having a lien on the property when the creditor levies upon attachment. Therefore, Travelers had a lien on the proceeds when they were placed in the accounts. The Court further ruled that the trustee could not avoid Travelers' interest in the proceeds under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a), because Travelers had a contingent lien under the 1995 injunction order. However, once Travelers obtained relief from stay and a judgment in state court, Travelers' lien was converted into a judgment lien that related back to 1995, the date of the injunction order.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
11 U.S.C. § 541 -- Property of the Estate
Wis. Stat. § 811.03 -- Basis for Attachment
Key Terms:
Avoidance
Pre-Judgment Attachment
Turnover of Property
Case Summary:
A trial on the Petition of Robert F. Craig, as Joint Official Liquidator of the Estate of Alpine Assurance, Ltd., was held on December 9, 1999. The court entered its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on December 29, 1999. Petitioner moved for a new trial under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, which adopts Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, alleging that the court's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law constituted a mistake of fact or a manifest error of law. The Seventh Circuit has held that for the court to grant a Rule 59 motion, the petition must "clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence." See LB Credit Corp. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263 (7th Cir. 1995). Since the petitioner did not allege that there was any newly discovered evidence, the court determined only whether there had been a mistake of fact or a manifest error of law. The court determined that it was not a manifest error of law for it to conclude that the officers of HIMI were not personally liable for HIMI's conversion of Alpine funds. The court refused to extend Capen Wholesale, Inc. v. Probst, 180 Wis. 2d 354 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993) to the insurance context and found instead that Wis. Admin. Code § 42.03(3) governs the personal liability of insurance agents. Second, the court found that its refusal to pierce the corporate veil was not a manifest error of law. The evidence that the president of HIMI borrowed $5,000 from the Alpine Policyholders Trust Account, which was separately accounted for by the corporate bookkeeper, was insufficient to show that HIMI had no separate legal existence and was no more than an instrumentality of the president. Finally, the court found that it was not a manifest error of law to rule that Alpine was not a customer of the Royal Bank of Hillsboro. Alpine does not meet the Wisconsin Uniform Commercial Code definition of "customer"; therefore, the Bank had no duty to close the Alpine Policyholder Trust Accounts upon instructions from the Joint Official Liquidator.
Statute/Rule References:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 -- New Trials
Key Terms:
Motion for New Trial
Judge Thomas S. Utschig
Case Summary:
Debtor brought proceeding to prevent state criminal proceedings. Debtor contended that the criminal prosecution was merely a pretext for collecting a debt which had been discharged in bankruptcy. The state moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding on the grounds that the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution precluded suits against states. The state cited Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 134 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1996), for support. The bankruptcy court concluded the Eleventh Amendment did not constitute a bar to the proceeding. On appeal, the district court reversed.
Key Terms:
Eleventh Amendment
Sovereign Immunity
Case Summary:
Trustee moved for turnover of debtor’s interest in a trust. The debtor argued that the trust was a “spendthrift trust” that was excluded from the bankruptcy estate by virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). The court, however, agreed with the trustee that since creditors could reach the trust res, it was not a true spendthrift trust. The motion for turnover was granted.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 541 -- Property of the Estate
Wis. Stat. § 701.06 -- Spendthrift Provisions and Rights of Creditors of Beneficiaries
Key Words:
Trusts - Generally
Turnover of Property
Case Summary:
Trustee brought sanctions motion against former counsel for bankruptcy debtor. The debtor’s discharge had been denied for his conduct during the discovery process. The trustee sought sanctions against various attorneys for their participation in “scorched earth” litigation. These attorneys filed motions to dismiss and/or strike the sanctions request. The court concluded that bankruptcy courts are “courts of the United States” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and can award sanctions pursuant to that statute. Further, similar power exists under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). The motions to strike were denied, and the matter set for an evidentiary hearing.
Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 105 -- Power of Court
28 U.S.C. § 1927 -- Counsel’s Liability for Excessive Costs
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 -- Sanctions
Key Terms:
Sanctions