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

In re Wink, Case No. 91-00120-7 (01/15/1992) (137 B.R. 297) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 01/15/1992

Case Summary:
State of Wisconsin may not effectively "opt out"  of the federal lien avoidance provision by defining its exemptions in such a way so as to exclude encumbered property.

Proper inquiry under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) is to inquire whether the debtor would be entitled to a particular exemption under state law but for the existence of a lien.  Wisconsin exemption laws can be reconciled with the lien-avoidance provisions of the bankruptcy code; federal law takes precedence over state law in cases involving those lien-avoidance provisions.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 522(f) -- Lien Avoidance

Key Terms:
Lien Avoidance

In re Steven’s Point Associated, Inc., Case No. 91-52925-7 (12/24/1991) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 12/24/1991

Case Summary:
Absent a reasonably clear manifestation to create a trust, no trust relationship existed between the movant Manheim Auto Auctions and the debtor, a Wisconsin car dealership.

Absent a reasonably clear manifestation by both parties of an intent to enter into a security agreement, no security interest was given in cars transferred to debtor car dealership for sale to third parties.  Mere retention of possession of a vehicle's certificate of title does not automatically result in a security interest attaching to the vehicle.

Movant Auto Auctions failed to show that either of two potentially applicable means of perfecting their alleged security interest in vehicles transferred to debtor had been implemented by them.  Perfected security interest of floor-plan-financing bank therefore took priority over any interest Auto Auctions might have retained in the vehicles.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 506(c) -- Recovery of Costs/Expenses in Disposing or Preserving Property
Wis. Stat. § 409.103 -- Perfection of Security Interests - Mobile Goods
Wis. Stat. § 409.302 -- Security Interests - Perfection

Key Terms:
Security Interests - Creation
Security Interests - Perfection
Trusts - Generally

In re Pleckham, Case No. 91-52170-11 (12/20/1991) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 12/20/1991

Case Summary:
A combine is not a "mobile good" for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 409.103(3). Creditor who did not file a financing statement in Wisconsin within four months of debtors' relocation of collateral to that state lost its priority as to its security interest in that collateral.

Statue/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 409.103 -- Perfection of Security Interests - Mobile Goods
Wis. Stat. § 409.103(3)

Key Terms:
Financing Statements -- Multiple State Transactions

Simon Brothers and Walter B. Bowe v. Agri-Supply Cooperative (In re Simon Brothers), Adv. No. 91-1142, Case No. 88-00006-11, 90-03231-11 (11/25/1991) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 11/25/1991

Case Summary:
11 U.S.C. § 553 does not create an independent right of setoff; it limits the use of setoff rights already available under state law. Before determining whether setoff was appropriate pursuant to § 553, state law right of setoff must first be established.  That issue is a proper one for determination by a state court. Whether the language in defendant Agri-Supply's bylaws is sufficient to grant it a lien under Wisconsin law is a proper matter for state court determination.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 553 -- Setoff

Key Terms:
Setoff

Gary L. Stanton v. Robert R. Reddick (In re Stanton), Adv. No.91-1137, Case No. 91-00994-7 (11/13/1991) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 11/13/1991

Case Summary:
Creditor (Snap-On Tools) did not lose its purchase money status in its security interest in tools sold to debtor so as to make its lien in the tools avoidable by the debtor.  Case did not involve a cross-collateralization, after-acquired property clause or a consolidation of security interests.  The only consolidation which occurred involved the outstanding balances from various purchases made by the debtor.  Where security interest does not specify how payments are to be applied, court can apply the payments pursuant to Wisconsin's "first-in, first-out" payment provision -- Wis. Stat. Ann. § 422.418(3) (West 1988).

Statue/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 409.107 -- Purchase money security interest
Wis. Stat. § 422.418 -- Allocation of payments - "first in-first out"

Key Terms:
Security Interests - Allocation of Payments
Security Interests - Consolidation
Security Interests - Purchase Money

Edward C. Tesar II and Leona M. Tesar v. Sears, Roebuck & Company (Tesar et al), Adv. No. 91-0063, Case No. 90-03443-7 (11/07/1991) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 11/07/1991

Case Summary:
Combined language contained in document entitled "SearsCharge Plus Security Agreement" and in sales receipts, both of which were signed by the debtor, was sufficient to grant defendant Sears a security interest [pursuant to Wis. Stats. Ann. §§ 409.105(m) and 409.203] in items of merchandise purchased by the debtors on credit.

Description of merchandise contained on the sales receipts signed by the debtor "reasonably identifies" the collateral for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 409.110.

Conduct of defendant Sears did not constitute commercial unconscionability under Wisconsin law.

Statue/Rule References:
Wis. Stat. § 409.105 -- Security Agreements
Wis. Stat. § 409.110 -- Security Agreements - Descriptions of Collateral
Wis. Stat. § 409.203 -- Security Interests - Attachment and Enforceability

Key Terms:
Security Interests - Creation
Unconscionability - Commercial

Harold E. Pretasky, Jr. v. Kimberly Ann LeJeune and Hale, Skemp, Hanson & Skemp Law Firm (In re Pretasky), Adv. No. 91-2108, Case No. 91-01062-7 (10/18/1991) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 10/18/1991

Case Summary:
In an action under § 523(a)(6), the debtor is not collaterally estopped from "relitigating" the "willful and malicious" issue on the basis of a prior finding by the Equal Rights Division of the Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations that he discriminated against the defendant-counterclaimant on the basis of sex (maternity).

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) -- Nondischargeability - Willful and Malicious Injury

Key Terms:
Collateral Estopple
Willful and Malicious

Judge Robert D. Martin

Gleischman Sumner Company v. The University of Maryland Foundation, Inc. (In re Carley Capital Group), Adv. No. 90-0236, Case No. 89-00587-11 (01/08/1992) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 01/08/1992
William J. Rameker, Trustee v. Valley Bank, Madison and Continental Bank (In re Pirkle Refrigerated Freight Lines, Inc.), Adv. No. 91-0042, Case No. 91-00043-7 (12/17/1991) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/17/1991
In re Marcus, Case No. 87-01392-11 (12/10/1991) -- Judge Robert D. Martin 12/10/1991

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 330 -- Compensation of Professionals

Key Terms:
Attorney Fees

Pages