Search Opinions
Judge Keywords
Total: 401

In re Stephanie Schauer, Case No. 07-26758, State of Wisconsin v. Debtor, Adv. No. 07-2317 Published: In re Schauer, 391 B.R. 430 (June 2008) -- Judge McGarity

The state brought an adversary proceeding against the debtor, seeking a determination that an obligation for child care overpayments was nondischargeable. The court granted summary judgment to the state, finding Wisconsin Works (W2) Child Care Subsidy overpayments to chapter 7 debtor were domestic support obligations within the meaning of sec. 101(14A) and thus nondischargeable pursuant to sec. 523(a)(5).


Sensient Tech. Corp. v. Baiocchi (In re Baiocchi), 389 B.R. 828 (June 2008) -- Judge Kelley
A for-profit corporation's employee tuition reimbursement program constituted an educational benefit under ยง 523(a)(8). The Court held that the Debtor's obligation to repay the debt was therefore nondischargeable in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

In re Robert & Gladys Nething, Case No. 07-27145 (May 2008) -- Judge McGarity

Chapter 13 debtors' attorney was "unsecured creditor" entitled to share in the unsecured creditors' pool of monthly disposable income under sec. 1325(b)(1)(B).


In re Jason Zahringer, Case No. 07-30217 (May 2008) -- Judge McGarity

Chapter 13 debtor could not deduct student loan payment as an additional expense claim on Line 59 of Form 22C due to "special circumstances."


In re Brian Whitelaw, Case No. 07-27846, American Standard Ins. Co. v. Debtor, Adv. No. 07-2282 (May 2008) -- Judge McGarity

Chapter 7 debtor owed plaintiff insurance company a subrogation claim resulting from damages to vehicle driven by debtor without permission of owner.  Because previous state court action did not litigate the issue of intent, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in sec. 523(a)(6) proceeding was denied.


In re Vission, Inc., Case No. 07-21957, Trustee v. Trasino Park-Hudsons, LLC, et al., Adv. No. 07-2111 (May 2008) -- Judge McGarity

In adversary proceeding involving the conflicting legal rights of two creditors in the business assets of the debtor, summary judgment was granted, in part, and denied, in part.  Although bank had knowledge of debtor's previous pledge of assets to creditor, bank perfected its security interest first, making its lien superior.  The creditor's request, in the alternative, for marshaling of assets could not be granted, as a matter of law, at the summary judgment stage.


In re Tyrone & Tammy Eiler, Case No. 07-26168 Published: In re Eiler, 390 B.R. 920 (May 2008) -- Judge McGarity

Chapter 13 debtor objection to proof of claim filed by mortgage lender, on ground that deficiency had been rolled into total amount owed, as set forth in previous reaffirmation agreement. The court sustained the objection and concluded the reaffirmation agreement changed the terms of mortgage note as it pertained to the calculation and collectability of arrearages incurred prior to when the reaffirmation agreement was entered into.


In re Jaime & Guadalupe Martinez, Case No. 07-26673 Published: In re Martinez, 391 B.R. 424 (May 2008) -- Judge McGarity

U.S. Trustee's motion to dismiss pursuant to sec. 707(b) was granted.  Chapter 7 debtors were not entitled to additional transportation expense on Line 22 of Form 22A for each of their vehicles after the loan was paid off.


In re James & Michelle Bork, Case No. 07-27105 Published: In re Bork, 389 B.R. 823 (May 2008) -- Judge McGarity

Chapter 7 trustee objected to exemption claimed by debtors in cash surrender values of their life insurance policies.  The court sustained the objection, finding debtors' exemption of the value of contracts of life insurance policies were limited by sec. 815.18(3)(f)3.b, Wis. Stat., with respect to funding any increase in such value that took place within 24 months of filing.


In re Ford, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1381 (April 2008) -- Judge Kelley
A vehicle that was not purchased for the personal use of the Debtor did not qualify for 910-treatment under the first portion of the hanging paragraph. Since the lender had a purchase money security interest in the vehicle and not "any other thing of value" the second portion of the hanging paragraph also did not apply. The Court questioned the good faith of the debtor in proposing to cram down on a brand new vehicle that the debtor did not use.

16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 20 of 41