Search Opinions
Judge Keywords
Total: 411

11-28921, Antoinette Maria Steward (November 2011) -- Judge Pepper

Oral ruling on creditor/landlord's motion to have its claim for the debtor's post-petition missed rent payments classified as an administrative priority claim.  The debtor's original plan had proposed to assume the lease.  Before the Court confirmed that plan, the creditor obtained relief from stay to evict the debtor.  The debtor amended the plan to reject the lease, the creditor did not object, and the Court confirmed that plan.  The Court found that the debtor never officially assumed the lease, because it was confirmation of the plan that solidified the debtor's proposed assumption or rejection.  The Court found that because the debtor had not assumed the lease pre-petition, the post-petition rejection did not constitute a breach of the lease contract under section 365(g)(1), and therefore that the missed lease payments were to be characterized as a pre-petition, general, unsecured, non-priority debt.

In re Richard VanDynHoven, Case No. 10-28421, The Bank of Kaukauna v. Debtor, Adv. No. 10-2474 (November 2011) -- Judge McGarity

Bank's claim arising for IRS and Dept. of Revenue overdrafts was nondischargeable under sec. 523(a)(14) and (a)(14A) because the overdrafts were debts incurred to satisfy tax obligations that would have been nondischargeable if they had not been honored.

In re Patricia A. McClellan, Case No. 05-44803, William T. Neary, UST v. Debtor, Adv. No. 07-2141 (October 2011) -- Judge McGarity

United States Trustee's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) for correction of error in order denying debtor's discharge was granted.  The order improperly denying the discharge under sec. 727(a)(8), instead of section 727(a)(2), was a clerical error, not a legal error.

In re Ronald & Sandra Anderson, Case No. 11-22650 (September 2011) -- Judge McGarity

Chapter 13 debtors with no personal liability on accelerated loan on principal residence were not allowed to strip the mortgage down to the value of the real estate.

11-20664, Thomas and Amy Pfister (September 2011) -- Judge Pepper

Court's oral ruling granting the United States Trustee's motion to dismiss under section 707(b)(3)(B) on the totality of the circumstances.

In re David & Laurie Mathe, Case No. 10-38356, Craig & Jeanne Bell v. Debtors, Adv. No. 11-2190 (September 2011) -- Judge McGarity

Summary judgment pursuant to doctrine of issue preclusion was not warranted because state court findings did not meet nondischargeability standards set forth in sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4).

In re Weise, 455 B.R. 702 (September 2011) -- Judge Kelley

In Chapter 13 case, junior lienholder’s secured status is not affected by the senior lienholder’s failure to file a claim within 90 days of the § 341 meeting of creditors.

In re Martin & Katherine Murray, Case No. 10-31824, M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Martin Murray v. M&S Automotive, LLC, and Shaun Buckett, Adv. No. 10-2482 (September 2011) -- Judge McGarity

Court abstained from hearing third party complaint for indemnification after plaintiff and defendant stipulated for dismissal of first party cause of action.

In re Jeff Carlson, Case No. 10-38400, Baytherm Insulation, Inc. v. Debtor, Adv. No. 10-2702 (August 2011) -- Judge McGarity

Underlying theft by contractor judgment was nondischargeable under sec. 523(a)(4).

Lind, 11-22623 (August 2011) -- Judge Pepper

In a Chapter 7 case involving married, jointly-filing debtors, the United States Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the debtor/husband under § 707(a), alleging that the fact that he was not eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge constituted "cause" for dismissal, and in the alternative, that he had filed his petition in bad faith, for the sole purpose of allowing the debtors to exempt assets that the wife, filing alone, would not have been able to exempt.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that ineligibility for a discharge did not constitute "cause" under § 707(a).  The Court found that bad faith was not a basis for dismissal under § 707(a), given that Congress explicitly had provided for dismissal due to bad faith in § 707(b).  The Court also found insufficient evidence to conclude that the debtor/husband had filed for the purpose of allowing the wife to exempt otherwise non-exempt assets

7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 11 of 42