Skip to main content

Opinions


    Layng, UST v. Debtor (In re Benkowski) (June 2012) -- Judge J.E. Shapiro
    The UST objected to the debtor's discharge based on § 727(a)(4)(A). The court found that the debtor's failure to disclose a $50,000 inheritance, large IRA withdraws, ownership of 5 guns, and a transfer of $66,000 to an insider within the 2 years prior to filing constituted a false oath and denied the debtor's discharge. 

    11-2527, Williams v. City of Milwaukee City Clerk; 11-2561, Campbell v. City of Milwaukee; and, 11-2597, Gillespie v. City of Milwaukee (May 2012) -- Judge P. Pepper
    In debtors' adversary proceeding to avoid the transfer of their real properties to the City of Milwaukee via tax lien foreclosure, the Court held that the City's "strict foreclosure" process under Wis. Stat. section 75.521, which did not involve any kind of sale, was not sufficient to establish the "reasonably equivalent value" element of a section 548 fraudulent conveyance action.

    10-34534, Vianca Wright (April 2012) -- Judge P. Pepper
    Court denied creditor's motion to compel the standing Chapter 13 trustee to pay the amounts listed in the creditor's supplemental notice to the proof of claim, which had been filed pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002.1. The Court held that the Form B10S notice of post-petition fees, costs and expenses did not constitute a "supplemental" or "amended" proof of claim, and was simply a notice designed to make debtors aware that creditors claimed post-petition fees were owed.

    Moss v. Sallie Mae, Inc., 470 B.R. 505 (April 2012) -- Judge S.V. Kelley
    Student loan creditor's policy conditioning debtor's new post-petition student loan on cure of default on pre-petition student loan did not violate automatic stay or anti-discrimination provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 525(c).

    In re Clark & Sara Meyer, Case No. 11-24099 (March 2012) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
    US Trustee moved to dismiss chapter 7 debtors' case pursuant to section 707(b), arguing the debtors' expenses, including tuition for parochial school, were excessive. Debtors countered that section 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(IV), which limits deductions for education expenses on the means test, was unconstitutional because it suppressed their right to practice religion. The court found section 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(IV) was not unconstitutional and granted the motion to dismiss.

    11-2102, Villalobos v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (March 2012) -- Judge P. Pepper
    Bankrupcty court found no justification for imposing an equitable lien in favor of the creditor on the debtors' rental property, when the reason that the creditor did not have a lien on that property was because it had erroneously applied the loan proceeds to a different property. The district court adopted the findings and conclusions in their entirety.

    In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 470 B.R. 495 (February 2012) -- Judge S.V. Kelley
    Negligence claims against the Archdiocese were derivative of the original abuse claims and shared the same statute of limitations; a question of fact for trial remained on when the fraud claims were or should have been discovered.

    In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 634 (February 2012) -- Judge S.V. Kelley
    Claimant who settled and released his claims against the Archdiocese prior to the petition was bound by the release, and failed to prove the required elements for fraudulent inducement into settlement.

    In re Wolverine Fire Apparatus Co., Case No. 09-32985, Larry Liebzeit, Trustee v. FVTS Acquisition Co., Inc., Adv. No. 11-2080 (January 2012) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
    Chapter 7 Trustee was granted summary judgment against seller of truck due to transaction with debtor being construed as a "consignment for security" and subject to avoidance by the trustee.

    Zimmerman v. Debtor (In re Hying) (January 2012) -- Judge J.E. Shapiro
    Plaintiff represented the defendant-debtor's ex-wife throughout various state court proceedings in connection with a divorce, and post-divorce custody disputes. During such proceedings, defendant-debtor was sanctioned and ordered to pay his ex-wife's attorney fees directly to the plaintiff. The court found such debts nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), finding the debts to be a domestic support obligation within BAPCPA's expanded definition. Further, the court found that even if the debt was not a domestic support obligation, it was nonetheless nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15), as a debt incurred in the course of a divorce.