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 Thomas S. Utschig

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

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

Nipulchandar Patel v. Robert J. Bukowski and Christine F. Bukowski (In re Bukowski), Adv. No. 96-2635, Case No. 96-25586 (05/26/1999) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 05/26/1999

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

In re Fisher, Case No. 96-15255-7 (02/12/1999) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 02/12/1999

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

In re Lawrence, Case No. 97-14687-7 (02/01/1999) (235 B.R. 498) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 02/01/1999

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

Judge Robert D. Martin

County of Dane v. Robin Smith-Parham (In re Smith-Parham), Adv. No. 98-3308, Case No. 98-34809-7 (06/14/1999) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 06/14/1999

Key Terms:
Collateral Estoppel
Fraud

William J. Rameker, Trustee v. Robert L. Peterson (In re Associated Enterprises, Inc.), Adv. No. 98-3287, Case No. 98-35190-7 (05/21/1999) (234 B.R. 718) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 05/21/1999

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 548 -- Fraudulent Conveyance
Wis. Stat. § 706.01 -- Statute of Frauds

Key Terms:
Fraudulent Conveyance

In re Larson, Case No. 96-32800-7 (04/09/1999) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 04/09/1999

Statute/Rule References:
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) -- Issuance of Writ

Key Terms:
Habeas Corpus

In re Air Improvement Resources Corp., Case No. 97-33453-7 (01/07/1999) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 01/07/1999

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 547 -- Preferences

Key Terms:
Insider - Definition
Preferences

Pages