Statute/Rule References:
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) -- Issuance of Writ
Key Terms:
Habeas Corpus
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
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
Statute/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 409.204 -- Security Interests - Dragnet Clause
Key Terms:
Security Interests - Attachment
Security Interests - Creation
Security Interests - Perfection
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 506(d) -- Lien Valuation and Strip Down
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
Wis. Stat. § 242 -- Fraudulent Conveyance
Key Terms:
Equitable Liens
Fraudulent Transfer
Lien Stripping
Summary Judgment
Turnover of Property
Judge Thomas S. Utschig
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
Case Summary:
Trustee’s objection to debtors’ exemption of a “Flexible Premium Retirement Annuity” was overruled. The debtors purchased the annuity on the eve of bankruptcy, using proceeds of a loan they obtained by pledging non-exempt assets as collateral. The trustee’s objection was based upon the belief that the annuity could not be exempt because there was no limit on the amount of annual contributions. However, the Wisconsin legislature said “any annuity” in Wis. Stat. 815.18(3)(j), and placed no limitation upon the exemption other than that it “comply” with the Internal Revenue Code. The court would enforce the provision as written.
Statue/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 815.18 -- Exemptions
Key Terms:
Exemptions
Retirement/Pension Plans