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 Thomas S. Utschig

Case Summary:
Failure to discharge debtor's student loan debt of $15,359 would constitute an "undue hardship" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8); student loan debt is therefore dischargeable.  Debtor is 57 years old, unmarried and without children.  She owns no real property nor a car and she earns approximately $500 per month at part-time minimum wage jobs.  Her monthly expenditures total over $800.  Expense budget does not include any amounts for medical or dental expenses, insurance or recreation and entertainment.  Requiring debtor to pay her student loan would therefore constitute an "undue hardship" for her.

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

Key Terms:
Student Loans


Case Summary:
Debtor is entitled to exempt $12,808 in personal injury award proceeds -- $6,904 pursuant to Wis. Stat.  § 815.18(3)(i)(c) [pain and suffering exemption] and $5,904 pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 815.18(3)(i)(d) [loss of future earnings exemption]. Debtor's exemption rights are to be determined on the basis of conditions as they existed on the date of bankruptcy filing; court refuses to retroactively apply Wisconsin exemption statutes to debtor's prepetition expenditures.  Prepetition expenditures from two separate award amounts (one for pain and suffering and the other for loss of future earnings) are to be allocated pro-rata between both amounts for purposes of determining exemption rights under Wisconsin law.

Amount "reasonably necessary for the debtor's support" for exemption purposes is to be determined on the basis of the debtor's present circumstances and income, other exempt property, and any other relevant factors.  Citing In re Haga, 48 B.R. 492, 496 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1985).

Statue/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 815.18 -- Exemptions

Key Terms:
Exemptions
Personal Injury Proceeds


Case Summary:
On cross motions for summary judgment, court grants defendants' motion as to counts II, III, VI and VII of plaintiff's complaint.  As to count II, plaintiff, a subsidiary and creditor of defendant, lacks standing to bring ultra vires claim pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 180.0304.  As to count III, plaintiff has not established that any transfers of property to the defendants occurred within one year preceding the bankruptcy filing.  Such a showing is necessary to prevail on a claim for fraudulent conveyance pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548.  As to count VI, plaintiff has failed to show that any transfers to defendants occurred within one year of filing; such showing is likewise necessary to prevail on a 11 U.S.C. § 547 preference claim.  As to count VII, plaintiff has failed to support its allegations of inequitable conduct by the defendants with the requisite "substantial factual showing" sufficient to overcome summary judgment motion on equitable subordination claim under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c).

Defendants' summary judgment motions as to counts I, IV and V are taken under advisement pending further court order or trial.  Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is likewise taken under advisement.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 510(c) -- Equitable Subordination
11 U.S.C. § 547 -- Preference
11 U.S.C. § 548 -- Fraudulent Conveyance
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056 -- Summary Judgment
Wis. Stat. § 180.0304 -- Ultra Vires Acts by Corporation

Key Terms:
Equitable Subordination
Fraudulent Conveyance
Preferences
Summary Judgment
Ultra Vires Act by Corporation


Case Summary:
Amounts constituting a MasterCard obligation and state and federal income tax obligations paid by debtor's ex-wife are dischargeable in debtor's bankruptcy.  This is in spite of the state court judge's approval of a stipulation between the parties which explicitly provided that any such amounts paid by one spouse above and beyond that spouse's 50% share would constitute a maintenance obligation of the non-paying spouse.  Court applied the factors identified in In re Messnick, 104 B.R. 89, 92 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1989).

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

Key Terms:
Divorce Decrees – Maintenance or Property Division


Case Summary:
Debtors' motions to extend exclusivity periods for filing their plans and for obtaining acceptances to those plans are granted.  Case is large and complex and involves significant amounts of litigation; debtors are not merely attempting to prolong the reorganization process for the purpose of pressuring creditors to accede to their plans; objecting creditors will not be unduly prejudiced by the reasonable extensions requested.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 1121(d) -- Exclusivity Period - Extension

Key Terms:
Exclusivity Periods -- Extension


Case Summary:
For purposes of resolving a priority dispute, State of Wisconsin, Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection's recording of a farm preservation agreement on October 13, 1985, did not create a lien as of that date against the debtor's property.  Interpreting the mere recording of such an agreement to have this effect would render other portions of the statutory scheme superfluous.  Wisconsin statutes provide a process through which a lien can be filed against property on the basis of a farm preservation agreement.  That process was not involved here.  Given the current contingent nature of any ultimate lien, court finds it would be manifestly unfair to State Bank of Arthur (a competing creditor) to prematurely fix the value of the state's contingent lien and thereby "cram down" the amount of the bank's secured claim.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 362(h) -- Damages For Willful Stay Violations
11 U.S.C. § 506(a) -- Valuation
11 U.S.C. § 522(c) -- Exemptions - As Against Federal Tax Liens
11 U.S.C. § 553 -- Setoff
Wis. Stat. § 91 -- Farm Preservation Agreements

Key Terms:
Agricultural Programs
Automatic Stay
Exemptions
Farm Preservation Agreement
Priority
Setoff


Judge Robert D. Martin

Statute/Rule References:
13 U.S.C. § 1325 -- Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan

Key Terms:
Confirmation - Chapter 13


Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) -- Nondischargeability - Fraud in Fiduciary Capacity
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) -- Nondischargeability - Willful and Malicious Injury

Key Terms:
Embezzlement
Willful and Malicious - Defined


Statute/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 815.20 -- Homestead Exemption

Key Terms:
Exemptions
Homestead


Pages