OpinionsDefendants' motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment, were denied. The debtor's complaint seeking damages for alleged violations of the automatic stay stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Additionally, the bankruptcy court had personal jurisdiction over the individual defendant and facts in dispute precluded summary judgment. In re Jones (13-33118) (January 2014) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger The court denied chapter 13 debtor's application to employ special counsel as unnecessary, finding that 327 applies only to trustees. In re Christina & Bernard Uhlig, Case No. 13-25360 (January 2014) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of modified plan on grounds it did not provide for payment of all projected disposable income. The Court overruled the objection, finding the cash surrender value increase of the debtors' whole life insurance policy over the life of the plan was not disposable income to be paid as an additional dividend to unsecured creditors. In re Lawrence and Lorine Hartung, Case No. 12-21920, Universal Restoration Services v. Debtors, Adv. No. 12-2359 (January 2014) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Plaintiff home restoration contractor filed motion for summary judgment on grounds that prior state court judgment against chapter 13 debtors for failure to pay insurance proceeds after repairs were made to their residence should be given preclusive effect. The motion was granted because the previous trial and appellate court findings were sufficient to find the obligation nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4). In re Ivano DiPietrantonio, Case No. 12-33921, A-1 Services, Inc. v. Debtor, Adv. No. 12-2949, Assured Power, Inc. v. Debtor, Adv. No. 12-2950 (November 2013) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Plaintiff subcontractors filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the chapter 7 debtor general contractor breached his fiduciary duties under Wisconsin's theft by contractor statute and the resulting debt was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4). Plaintiffs also argued a previous state court default judgment should be given preclusive effect. The motions were denied because the matter had not been actually litigated in state court and the bankruptcy court was required to assess the debtor's state of mind while acting in a fiduciary capacity. In re Brian & Kelly Vieaux, Case No. 12-36663, K&D Masonry LLC v. Debtors, Adv. No. 13-2196 (November 2013) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Plaintiff subcontractor's motion for summary judgment on grounds that chapter 13 debtor prime contractor breached his duties under Wisconsin's theft by contractor statute and the resulting debt was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4) was denied. Standards established by Supreme Court required the court to make a finding regarding the debtor's state of mind while acting in a fiduciary capacity, a determination ill-suited for summary judgment. In re Rove, 505 B.R. 502 (October 2013) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Debtor was allowed to exempt interest in Dairy Cooperative equity account under § 522(d)(10)(E) because account was payable on account of age and was similar to a profit-sharing plan. In re Perry, et al (13-23897) (October 2013) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger Order overruling debtors' post-confirmation claim objections. In re Robles (13-21328) (August 2013) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger Order denying debtor's post-confirmation claim objection. In re Gerard, 495 B.R. 850 (August 2013) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Although the absolute priority rule continues to apply to individual chapter 11 debtors, debtor does not violate the rule by retaining exempt property. |