Key Terms:
Collateral Estoppel
Fraud
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. § 548 -- Fraudulent Conveyance
Wis. Stat. § 706.01 -- Statute of Frauds
Key Terms:
Fraudulent Conveyance
Statute/Rule References:
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) -- Issuance of Writ
Key Terms:
Habeas Corpus
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 547 -- Preferences
Key Terms:
Insider - Definition
Preferences
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) -- Nondischargeability - Willful and Malicious Injury
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) -- Nondischargeability - Fines / Penalties / Forfeitures
Key Terms:
Restitution
Summary Judgment
Willful and Malicious - Defined
Judge Thomas S. Utschig
In re Klug Farm Partnership, Case No. 99-50046-12 (05/27/1999) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 05/27/1999
Case Summary:
Partnership which had been previously dissolved by the agreement of the partners filed bankruptcy. The primary secured creditor moved to dismiss the case, contending that (i) a dissolved partnership was not eligible to proceed under chapter 11 or 12, and (ii) that the individual partners’ own prior bankruptcies prevented them from acting on behalf of the partnership. The court found that at least in the context of a family farm partnership operated solely by a husband and wife, the dissolution did not necessarily terminate the business operation or mandate that the partnership “wind up” its affairs. Rather, the agreement of the partners dictates whether the partnership can continue reorganization efforts. Likewise, while state law would normally preclude a bankrupt partner from acting on behalf of the partnership, the partners can agree otherwise. The motion to dismiss was denied.
Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1208(c) -- Dismissal
Wis. Stat. § 178.03 -- Partnership
Wis. Stat. § 178.25(2) -- Dissolution of Partnership
Key Terms:
Dismissal
Partnerships
Case Summary:
Former business partner sued the debtors, contending that his judgment against the debtors was nondischargeable under §§ 523(a)(4) and (a)(6). Creditor also claimed the debtors’ discharge should be denied for alleged misrepresentations and other activities related to valuation of their assets, primarily their stock interest in a company which the debtors valued at “$0" in their schedules. The court found that the debtors’ use of a “liquidation value” rather than a “going concern” value was appropriate under the circumstances, and as a result there was no basis to deny the debtors’ discharge under § 727(a). Likewise, the court concluded that there was no “fiduciary capacity” between the parties under § 523(a)(4). However, the state court jury did find that the debtor acted in a manner which qualified as “willful and malicious” conduct under § 523(a)(6), and the debt was excepted from discharge on that basis.
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud in Fiduciary Capacity
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) -- Nondischargeability - Willful and Malicious Injury
11 U.S.C. § 727 -- Discharge
Key Words:
Discharge
Fraud – Fiduciary Capacity
Willful and Malicious
Case Summary:
Trustee sought approval of stipulation with debtors concerning the nonexempt portion of their homestead. The stipulation proposed that the debtors would “buy back” the nonexempt portion for $29,000.00, secured by a promissory note and mortgage. The largest creditor objected, contending that the settlement was unreasonable and should not be approved. The court held that while the best interests of the estate is the “benchmark” for determining the propriety of a settlement, a creditor’s views are not controlling. Rather, the court must determine whether the settlement falls below the lowest point in the realm of reasonableness. The settlement agreement was not so unreasonable, and would be approved.
Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) -- Nondischargeability - Divorce Decrees
Key Terms:
Divorce Decrees – Maintenance or Property Division
Settlement
Case Summary:
Debtor, who had previously been denied a discharge, sought to exempt approximately $450,000.00 held in a pension plan. The trustee objected to the exemption, contending that the plan was not compliant with either ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code. The court found that the insubstantial presence of one other employee as a participant in the plan did not render it ERISA-qualified; ERISA excludes plans which benefit only sole shareholders such as the debtor, and this was therefore a “plan without employees” and not covered by ERISA. Similarly, the failure to maintain or update the plan to conform with the tax laws meant that the plan was not “IRS-qualified.” Accordingly, the debtor’s exemption claim was denied.
Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(d) -- Exemptions - Federal
11 U.S.C. § 541 -- Property of the Estate
Key Terms:
Exemptions
Property of the Estate
Case Summary:
Bankruptcy trustee sought to compel answers to various discovery questions which the debtor had answered in a vague and evasive fashion. The court granted the motion. Thereafter, the trustee sought answers to these questions in a hearing before the court. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trustee requested default judgment on his complaint objecting to the debtor’s discharge on the basis that the debtor continued to refuse to answer the discovery questions. The court held that the debtor’s failure to respond justified imposition of the extreme sanction of judgment on the pleadings. The debtor had received ample opportunity to make full disclosure to the court and the trustee. Accordingly, judgment was entered denying the debtor’s discharge.
Statue/Rule Reference:
11 U.S.C. § 727 -- Discharge
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 -- Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery: Sanctions
Key Terms:
Discharge