Debtor's attorney forced to refund entire fee when she gave inappropriate advice to file bankruptcy when a state court action was warranted, filed inaccurate schedules and fee disclosure and failed to appear at a hearing on enforcement of the stay taking the position that her fee did not cover that hearing.
In re Ingram, 508 B.R. 98 (March 2014) -- Judge S.V. Kelley
Attorneys' fees and punitive damages for stay violation denied when towing company held valid statutory lien on debtor's truck.
In re Eckerstorfer (13-26186) (March 2014) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger
The court sustained, in part, the debtor's ex-wife's objection to confirmation of the debtor's chapter 13 plan and overruled the debtor's objection to his ex-wife's proof of claim, concluding that (i) the plan's proposed treatment of the maintenance arrears owed to the debtor's ex-wife did not comply with 11 U.S.C. §1322(a)(2), and (ii) the debtor did not have a right of setoff under Wisconsin law that would allow him to reduce the amount of his ex-wife's proof of claim.
In re Lawrence & Lorine Hartung, Case No. 12-21920 (March 2014) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
Court found judicial lien on chapter 13 debtors' homestead was avoidable to extent trust monies were not traceable to homestead. Wisconsin law regarding exception to homestead exemption statute was discussed. Additionally, Court noted that exemption by default under section 522(l) did not appy in the context of lien avoidance. Note: This is a Court Minutes Decision, only.
In re William R. Barnes, Case No. 11-27724 (March 2014) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
After above-median income debtor's income decreased below the applicable median income following confirmation, he sought to reduce the plan duration to a period less than 60 months without also providing for full repayment to unsecured creditors. The trustee opposed confirmation of the modified plan. The court overruled the objection in part and sustained the objection in part. A postconfirmation modification could reduce the applicable commitment period, provided the change in circumstances inhibited the debtor's ability to fund the plan through the end of the original term, a determination which required further evidence.
State of Wisconsin-Department of Workforce Development v. Davis (In re Davis), 507 B.R. 280 (March 2014) -- Judge S.V. Kelley
The Debtor was not personally liable under Wis. Stat. § 108.22(9) for a defunct corporation's liability for unpaid unemployment contributions.
In re Tammi Bastian, Case No. 13-21240, Debtor v. Fast EFNDS LLC, et al., Adv. No. 13-2198 (February 2014) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
Defendants' 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).