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. § 553 -- Setoff
Key Terms:
Setoff
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 553 -- Setoff
Key Terms:
Setoff
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 544 -- Trustee as Lien Creditor
Key Terms:
Security Interests - Perfection
"Strong Arm" Power
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(d) -- Attorneys' Fees in Dischargeability Action
Key Terms:
Consumer Debt
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud in Fiduciary Capacity
14 U.S.C. § 362 -- Automatic Stay
Wis. Stat. § 779.02(5) -- Theft by Contractor
Key Terms:
Fraud - Fiduciary Capacity
Theft by Contractor
Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 524 -- Discharge Injunction
11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2)
Wis. Stat. § 701.06 -- Spendthrift Provisions and Rights of Creditors of Beneficiaries
Key Terms:
Discharge
Divorce Decrees - Post Discharge Enforcement
Due or Payable
Principal Payment
Specificity of Statute
Spendthrift Trust
Turnover of Property
Judge Thomas S. Utschig
Case Summary:
Debtors/farmers filed motion to avoid the lien of Farm Service Agency in “tools of the trade.” The equipment in question had been claimed as exempt property under the Wisconsin exemption statutes, Wis. Stat. § 815.18(3)(b). FSA objected to the motion, contending that 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(3) created a federally mandated “cap” on lien avoidance on tools of the trade. According to FSA, the debtors should only be entitled to lien avoid $5,000.00 each of its lien, rather than the $7,500.00 allowed by the state exemption.
Court held that § 522(f)(3) did not apply in Wisconsin because Wisconsin did not allow unlimited exemptions in tools of the trade and also did not expressly prohibit lien avoidance. Declined to follow In re Parrish, 186 B.R. 246 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1995), and adopted the reasoning of the court in In re Zimmel, 185 B.R. 786 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1995).
Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(f) -- Lien Avoidance
Key Terms:
Exemptions
Lien Avoidance
Case Summary:
Credit card company brought adversary proceeding against debtors, contending that credit card debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Court rejected assumption of the risk approach to credit card debt, the implied representation theory, and the totality of the circumstances test. Instead, court found that the relevant inquiry focuses upon common law of fraud, citing Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 116 S. Ct. 437, 133 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1995). Under common law of fraud, a promise of future performance is actionable as fraud if, at the time the statement or representation was made, the debtor never actually intended to honor the statement.
Further, the court found that the absence of face to face contact was irrelevant to the inquiry. Debtors still make a representation to the creditor by using the card, given the broad meaning of the term “representation.” That representation, however, is only actionable if the debtors did not intend to honor the promise to pay. Intent is based upon a subjective standard, not an objective reasonable person test. Under this test, the debtors lacked an intent to deceive. Furthermore, the creditor failed to demonstrate justifiable reliance upon any misrepresentations made by the debtors.
Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud
Key Terms:
Fraud -- Credit Cards