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

Wayne K. Crawford v. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service (In re Crawford), Adv. No. 00-3190, Case No. 00-34046-13 (07/23/2001) (2001 WL 1136919) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 07/23/2001

Case Summary:
Shortly before Debtor filed for bankruptcy he filed his federal income tax return for the previous year and was entitled to a refund. Approximately one month after the tax return was filed, the IRS applied the refund to Debtor's 1993 federal income tax deficiency. The IRS filed a proof of claim for unsecured priority (for 1995 and 1996) and non-priority (for 1993 and 1994) taxes due. Debtor then brought this adversary proceeding seeking to reallocate the funds set off by the IRS and objecting to its claim of priority for the 1995 taxes. The parties agreed that the IRS had a valid right to setoff under § 553(a). Debtor contends that it is inequitable to permit the IRS to setoff against non-priority debts, rather than priority debts, because this gives the IRS a preference over other general creditors. However, a setoff under § 553 is a preference condoned under the Code and an exception to the bankruptcy principle of equal distribution among creditors. It was determined that the IRS had properly exercised its ability to off set in this case. It was further determined that because the due date for the debtor's 1995 tax return fell outside the three-year period preceding his bankruptcy case, the 1995 taxes would ordinarily not be entitled to priority under § 507(a)(8). There was an added wrinkle in the case, however, since the Debtor had previously filed bankruptcy in 1996 and was discharged in 1997. The IRS argued that the three-year period of § 507(a)(8) was tolled during the period of the prior bankruptcy case and for an additional six months thereafter. It was determined that § 6503(h) is given effect by § 108(c) and that the two provisions operate jointly to toll the three-year period in § 507(a)(8) when the taxpayer's assets are tied up in a court proceeding. It was further determined that the 1995 taxes are entitled to priority under § 507(a)(8).

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 108(c)
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A) -- Nondischargeability - Taxes
11 U.S.C. § 553 -- Setoff
26 U.S.C. § 6402(a) -- General Rule
26 U.S.C. § 6503(h) -- Cases Under Title 11 of the United States Code

Key Terms:
Taxes
Setoff

In re Hennekens, Case No. 99-13921-13 (03/19/2001) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 03/19/2001

Case Summary:
Bank moved for stay relief under § 362(d)(1) claiming a lack of adequate protection of its interest in the stock it held under a pledge by Debtor as collateral for a letter of credit, which it sought to liquidate. Bank argued lack of adequate protection principally because the stock may depreciate in value. Bank held a contingent secured claim as the DNR may demand an undetermined amount under the letter of credit. Once the DNR draw is made, Bank has the right to reimbursement from the proceeds of stocks pledged by debtor. Bank also sought relief under § 362(d)(2) and bears the initial burden of proving debtor has no equity in the stock. The presence of equity depends on the draw by the DNR under the letter of credit. It was found that because there is no part of the stock's value that is free from the contingent claim of Bank as of the date of the petition, debtor had no equity for purposes of § 362(d)(2)(A). It was also found that the maintenance of the stock was a benefit of the creditors as the cost of disposition to Debtor would include a potentially substantial tax liability that would have to be paid as post-petition indebtedness which would certainly jeopardize Debtor's ability to make payments on pre-petition debts. Although there may be a certain inevitability to that expense, to permit Bank to accelerate the crisis by selling the stock before it lacks adequate protection and before the DNR draws on the letter of credit would undermine the feasibility of the plan. Bank's relief from stay was denied.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 361 -- Adequate Protection
11 U.S.C. § 362(d) -- Relief from stay
11 U.S.C. § 362(g)(1)
11 U.S.C. § 506(a) -- Determination of secured status
11 U.S.C. § 506(d) -- Lien valuation and strip down
11 U.S.C. § 1121(b)
11 U.S.C. § 1121(c)(2)
11 U.S.C. § 1322 -- Mortgage protection
11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) -- Modification of rights of secured claimants
11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)

Key Terms:
Adequate Protection
Letters of Credit
Relief from Stay
"Strip Down"

In re Garland, Case No. 99-33728-7 (02/22/2001) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 02/22/2001

Case Summary:
Debtor stipulated to judgment of divorce assigning certain marital debts to each party, including a waiver of maintenance by Debtor in exchange for Section 71 payments from ex-spouse. The stipulation also set forth that the Section 71 payments could not be modified unless one party dies or the Debtor received an award for child support. When Debtor failed to pay her debts from the divorce judgement, ex-spouse filed contempt proceedings in state court. Ex-spouse was awarded judgment of the unpaid debts from the divorce judgment, among other awards. Debtor then sought Chapter 7 relief and subsequently received her discharge. Almost a year later the ex-spouse petitioned the state court to revise the divorce judgment requesting a reduction of the Section 71 payments to reflect Debtor's non-payment of bills which were imposed upon him as a result of Debtor's bankruptcy. Debtor filed a motion to reopen her case in order to bring a contempt motion and leave was granted. It was found that the ex-spouse was estopped from moving to modify the Section 71 payments. It was also found that the ex-spouse was attempting to enforce a discharged debt and was sanctioned under § 524 for Debtor's actual costs incurred in enforcing the discharge injunction of her bankruptcy.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 341(a)
11 U.S.C. § 362(h) -- Damages for Willful Stay Violations
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) -- Nondischargeability - Marital Obligations
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) -- Nondischargeability - Divorce Decrees
11 U.S.C. § 523(c)
11 U.S.C. § 524(a)
11 U.S.C. § 727 -- Discharge
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(b) -- Time for Commencing Proceeding Other than Under § 523
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c) -- Time for Filing Nondischargeability Complaint
Wis. Stat. § 767.32(1)
Wis. Stat. § 767.32(3)

Key Terms:
Sanctions
Divorce Decrees - Maintenance or Property Division

In re Bradica, Case No. 00-31352-7 (12/14/2000) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/14/2000

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(d) -- Exemptions - Federal
15 U.S.C § 1673 -- Restriction on Garnishment

Key Terms:
Exemptions

Milton Scott Andros v. Richard L. Soddy (In re Andros), Adv. No. 00-3028, Case No. 99-34989-7 (12/14/2000) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/14/2000

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

In re Witt, Case No. 99-35821-7 (10/13/2000) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 10/13/2000

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 551 -- Automatic Preservation of Avoided Transfer

Key Terms:
Lien Avoidance

In re Kadrmas, Case No. 00-31338-7 (09/19/2000) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 09/19/2000

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

Judge Thomas S. Utschig

George C. Mallinckrodt v. Chemical Bank, Nellie Mae, Sallie Mae, The Education Resources Institute, Inc and USA Group Loan Services, Inc. (In re Mallinckrodt), Adv. No, 00-1220, Case No. 00-10957-7 (03/28/2001) (260 B.R. 892) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 03/28/2001

Case Summary:
Debtor brought adversary proceeding to determine whether his student loans should be discharged as an “undue hardship” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).  The court concluded that the debtor’s financial condition was such that he would not be able to maintain a minimal standard of living if required to repay the loans.  Further, this condition was likely to persist for the foreseeable future, and the debtor had acted in good faith.  There is also no basis for restructuring or deferring the debt.  Reversed on appeal.

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

Key Terms:
Student Loans

Kenneth J. Salinas v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. (In re Salinas), Adv. No. 98-5159, Case No. 98-53293-7 (02/14/2001) (258 B.R. 913) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 02/14/2001

Case Summary:
On remand of district court’s order reversing prior order granting discharge of student loan debts, the bankruptcy court again considered the debtor’s financial condition.  Debtor did not have significant income, and had in fact been unemployed for a period of time.  The court concluded that the debtor had demonstrated an “undue hardship” within the meaning of U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).  The court also rejected the suggestion that the court could further defer or reduce the debtor’s loan obligations.

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

Key Terms:
Student Loans

Coralynn F. Nelson v. La Crosse County District Attorney (State of Wisconsin) and Tim Gruenke (In re Nelson), Adv. No. 99-2189, Case No. 99-21588-7 (09/18/2000) (254 B.R. 436) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 09/18/2000

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

Pages