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

Naly Phaboriboune, f/k/a Naly Phouthavong v. Samrit Sasopa, f/k/a Samrit Rousch (In re Sasopa), Adv. No. 99-3013, Case No. 98-35054-7 (03/02/2000) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 03/02/2000

Case Summary:
The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that as a matter of law, she is entitled to a judgment finding the debtor's debt to her nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).  The debtor attacked the plaintiff, bit off the plaintiff's second finger at the joint area and was charged in state court with aggravated battery with intent to cause substantial bodily harm.  The debtor pled guilty to this crime.  The plaintiff argued that because the debtor pled guilty to aggravated assault, she was precluded, under the doctrine of issue preclusion, from re-litigating the issue of whether her actions were willful and malicious for purposes of § 523(a)(6).  The Court denied plaintiff's motion on two grounds: (1) there were issues of material fact regarding the debtor's actions; and (2) this court could not apply the doctrine of issue preclusion because the issue of the debtor's willfulness and maliciousness had not been actually litigated.  The court outlined the requirements for issue preclusion and found that the plaintiff did not meet the fourth requirement -- that "the issues in the prior action . . . must have been actually litigated and necessarily determined."  See In the Matter of Wagner, 79 B.R. 1016 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1987).  Looking to Wisconsin law, the court determined that in the absence of a clear statement from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, this court was precluded from finding that a plea of guilty satisfies the requirement that a controversy be "actually litigated" for issue preclusion to apply.

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

Key Terms:
Collateral Estoppel
Willful and Malicious - Defined

In re Galeles, Case No. 99-34061-7 (02/18/2000) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 02/18/2000

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E) -- Exemptions - Federal - Stock Bonus, Pension, Profit-sharing, Annuity
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4003(c) -- Exemptions - Burden of Proof

Key Terms:
Exemptions - Annuity

In re Winterskills, Inc., Case No. 98-33887-7 (12/23/1999) (243 B.R. 351) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/23/1999

Statute/Rule References:
29 U.S.C. § 1930 -- U.S. Trustee Fees

Key Terms:
Chapter 11 - Plan Disbursements
U.S. Trustee Fees

LaVern Mueller v. State of Wisconsin, Department of Workforce Development (In re Mueller), Adv. No. 99-3072, Case No. 98-33651-7 (12/15/1999) (243 B.R. 346) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/15/1999

Case Summary:
The debtor brought this adversary proceeding to determine whether he should be discharged from his debt to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development ("WDWD") for unpaid unemployment insurance contributions of his corporation.  The Court found the debt to be nondischargeable under either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A) or 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Relying on the Eighth Circuit B.A.P. in In re Voightman, 239 B.R. 380 (8th Cir. B.A.P. 1999), the court found the unpaid unemployment insurance contributions to be an excise tax under § 507(a)(8)(E) of the Bankruptcy Code.  According to the court, the obligation at issue was an excise tax because it was "an involuntary pecuniary burden imposed by the State of Wisconsin on employers . . . for the public purpose of creating a 'gradual and constructive solution of the unemployment problem.'"  Finally, the court held that the debt was also nondischargeable under § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) because this section "excepts from discharge any debt of an individual debtor for a tax where a return was filed late and within the two-year period prior to bankruptcy."  Because the debtor was liable for the debt as a responsible party, and the returns were filed late and within the two-year period prior to bankruptcy, the debtor's debt for unpaid unemployment insurance contributions is not dischargeable under § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii).

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1) -- Nondischargeability - Taxes

Key Terms:
Taxes - Dischargeability

Samuel O. & Lorraine B. Stone, Plaintiffs v. Rubidell Resort Condominium (In re Stone), Adv. No. 99-3090, Case No. 98-3548-7 (12/06/1999) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/06/1999

Case Summary:
The debtors brought an adversary proceeding to determine whether the post-petition maintenance fees that accrued on the debtors' campsite were dischargeable in their bankruptcy and seeking sanctions against the defendant for violating the automatic stay in attempting to collect a debt.  The court (Judge Martin) held that the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(16) requirements for an exception to discharge had not been met because (1) the unit is not a dwelling unit; (2) the debtor never physically occupied the unit; and (3) the debtors never rented or received rent from the unit.  The court then, following the holding of the Seventh Circuit in In the Matter of Rosteck, 899 F.2d 694 (7th Cir. 1990), held that the post-petition maintenance fees were dischargeable in the debtors' bankruptcy because the debt was for future assessments based on a pre-petition contract to pay, and the debt arose pre-petition.  The court refused to impose sanctions on the defendants because if the defendants attempted to collect a debt from the debtors, they did so under a good faith belief, supported by case law, that the debt was nondischargeable.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(16) -- Nondischargeability - Fees / Assessments to Associations

Key Terms:
Claims - Definition
Maintenance Fees

Judge Thomas S. Utschig

Cummins Great Lakes, Inc. v. CAM Construction Co., Inc (In re CAM Construction Co., Inc), Adv. No. 99-5145, Case No. 98-56035-11 (02/15/2000) (248 B.R. 134) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 02/15/2000

Case Summary:
The debtor’s plan treated the creditor as unsecured.  The creditor contended that it had a mechanic’s lien associated with certain repair services performed on the debtor’s equipment.  The court interpreted Wis. Stat. § 779.41(1) to require that the mechanic retain “actual physical possession” of the property in order to maintain a mechanic’s lien claim.  As the services here were performed on the debtor’s premises, the creditor never had possession of the property and therefore had no lien.  The creditor’s claim was unsecured.

Statute/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 779.41 -- Mechanic’s Liens

Key Words:
Mechanic’s Liens
Security Interests -- Creation

Schubbe Resch Chiropractic & Physical Therapy Centers and Schubbe Family Chiropractic v. Christine M. Norton (In re Norton), Adv. No. 99-5131, Case No. 99-51961-7 (02/15/2000) (248 B.R. 131) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 02/15/2000

Case Summary:
Creditors filed adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).  The debtor had been treated by the creditors for injuries she had suffered.  The debtor executed a “Financial Responsibility Form” under which she agreed to repay the creditors from any personal injury settlement she received.  Although she did ultimately receive a settlement, she did not pay the creditors.  The creditors contended that her actions constituted fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).  They also asserted a hospital lien.  The court found that the documents in question did not rise to a lien, equitable or otherwise.  Further, there was no evidence that the debtor executed the Financial Responsibility Form with an intent to deceive.  Adversary proceeding dismissed.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud

Key Terms:
Fraud
Security Interests - Creation

Kenneth J. Salinas v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. (In re Salinas), Adv. No. 98-5159, Case No. 98-53293-7 (09/15/1999) (240 B.R. 305) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 09/15/1999

Case Summary:
Debtor filed adversary proceeding contending student loan debt constituted an "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The Court concluded that the debtor could not maintain a minimal standard of living, especially given the presence of other student loans the debtor conceded were nondischargeable. The debtor had done everything he could to maximize income and minimize expenses. His expenses still exceeded his income by a considerable amount. Accordingly, the debt was an "undue hardship" under § 523(a)(8) and dischargeable.  [Reversed on appeal, 262 B.R. 457 (W.D. Wis. 1999)]

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

Key Terms:
Student Loans

The Olsten Corporation v. Patricia G. Hass (In re Hass), Adv. No. 97-2247, Case No. 97-23003-7 (08/18/1999) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 08/18/1999

Case Summary:
Creditor filed adversary proceeding alleging that a state court judgment and criminal restitution award were nondischargeable.  Both the judgment and the restitution award stemmed from the same conduct – the debtor’s alleged conversion or embezzlement of funds, which the plaintiff alleged was nondischargeable under either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) or (a)(6).

The court concluded that the restitution award was entitled to preclusive effect under principles of collateral estoppel.  Despite the fact that the debtor pled guilty without admitting any wrongdoing, the state court record was replete with additional factual findings which mandated preclusive effect.  The jury verdict in the civil suit, however, did not establish that the debtor’s conduct was willful and malicious, in that the jury could have concluded that the debtor was guilty of mere “reckless” conduct.  Summary judgment was entered under § 523(a)(4) and denied under § 523(a)(6).

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) -- Nondischargeability - Embezzlement
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) -- Nondischargeability - Willful and Malicious Injury

Key Terms:
Collateral Estoppel
Embezzlement
Willful and Malicious

Robert P. Fisher and Kathleen S. Fisher v. Dianne Niemi-Hart (In re Fisher), Adv. No. 98-1023, Case No. 96-15255-7 (08/10/1999) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 08/10/1999

Case Summary:
Debtor filed an adversary proceeding seeking to discharge a judgment entered in state court in favor of his former spouse.  The judgment consisted of unpaid child support dating from the 1970s, together with accrued interest.  The debtor contended that the court should discharge the obligation as it did not represent support and was no longer necessary to support debtor’s children, who were now in their mid-30s.  Based upon 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), the court concluded the debt was nondischargeable.

Under § 523(a)(5), the court’s focus is upon the parties’ intent at the time of the divorce.  Subsequent circumstances are irrelevant.  As the debtor admitted the debt was originally in the nature of child support, it could not be discharged.  The accrued interest was ancillary to the primary debt, and likewise nondischargeable.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) -- Nondischargeability - Divorce Decrees

Key Terms:
Divorce Decrees – Maintenance or Property Division
Settlement

Pages