Skip to main content


    In re Robert & Gladys Nething, Case No. 07-27145 (May 2008) -- Judge M.D. 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 Vission, Inc., Case No. 07-21957, Trustee v. Trasino Park-Hudsons, LLC, et al., Adv. No. 07-2111 (May 2008) -- Judge M.D. 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 M.D. 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 M.D. 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 M.D. 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 Gerald & Margaret Tevz, Case No. 01-30923, Debtors v. Milwaukee County, Adv. No. 07-2146 (April 2008) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
    County's actions in attempting to collect, post-discharge, interest on property taxes which was not paid through the chapter 13 plan was not a violation of the discharge injunction. (This decision is a court minute decision, only.)

    In re Lacey K. Rither, Case No. 05-23558 (April 2008) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
    In pre-BAPCPA case, chapter 13 debtor was not allowed to modify plan to limited payments of one half of tax refunds to only the first three years of the newly-extended plan.

    In re Melvin M. Kalata, Case No. 07-21710 (February 2008) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
    Chapter 13 debtor was not allowed to take a deduction on Means Test for "future payments on secured claims" for surrendered residence.

    In re Roger & Roberta Clark, Case No. 07-23390 (February 2008) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
    Chapter 13 debtors were allowed to take a vehicle ownership expense deduction for a vehicle they owned free and clear.

    In re Muth Mirror Systems, LLC, et al., Case No. 06-25609, Muth Mirror Systems, LLC, et al. v. Gentex Corp. v. Muth Mirror Systems, LLC, et al., Adv. No. 06-2470 Published: In re Muth Mirror Systems, LLC, 379 B.R. 805 (December 2007) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
    Chapter 11 debtor, the holder of patent for a non-dichroic signal mirror, brought an adversary proceeding against a competitor that had filed a proof of claim against the estate for the competitor's alleged infringement of its patent, alleged breach of alliance agreement between the parties, and tortious interference with its contractual relations, and the competitor counterclaimed against the debtor. The court held the debtors' patent was invalid and the competitor's product did not infringe that patent. The competitor did, however, breach the parties' alliance agreement, causing the debtor to suffer damages.