OpinionsThe plaintiff alleged that as a result of a physical confrontation in which the debtor-defendant punched the plaintiff three times in the head, the debtor owed him a debt for willful and malicious injuries, excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6). After a trial, the court found that plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements of injury (defined by precedent as a violation of a legal right) and malice (defined by precedent as acting with a conscious disregard of duties or without just cause or excuse) because the debtor acted in self-defense. In re Himes, Case No. 19-20183 (March 2025) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger Flagstar Bank, N.A., filed a response to the chapter 13 trustee's notice of final cure payment pursuant to Rule 3002.1(g), asserting that the debtors were delinquent on postpetition payments. The debtors filed a motion pursuant to Rule 3002.1(h) requesting that the court determine the amount of the final cure payment owed to Flagstar Bank. The debtors also requested that the court award them attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Rule 3002.1(i), because Flagstar failed to provide them with the information required by Rule 3002.1(g). The court granted the debtor’s request for fees and costs, ruling that Flagstar Bank's Rule 3002.1(g) statement was inaccurate and failed to properly itemize the required amounts. The court also barred Flagstar from recovering any related fees or costs from the debtors. In re Hammond, Case No. 24-20428 (January 2025) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger The chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the plan asserting that the plan does not propose payments by the debtor to the trustee in a sufficient amount to allow the trustee to pay the allowed secured claims provided for by the plan, if interest on those claims, pursuant to Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), is calculated from the date on which the petition was filed. The court interpreted the plan, in accordance with 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(5)(B)(ii), to provide for Till interest only from the effective date of the plan, which is the date on which the plan is confirmed, not from the petition date, and overruled the trustee's objection to confirmation. In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Case No. 11-20059 (September 2024) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger The State of Wisconsin Department of Justice moved to reopen this chapter 11 case, which has been closed since 2016 (following plan confirmation and full administration of the bankruptcy estate), to request access to hard copies of approximately 1,500 proofs of claim and related documents filed and maintained under seal pursuant to a 2011 protective order. The court denied the State's motion to reopen the case (and struck, as improperly filed, the State's motion for access to sealed records) because the State failed to show cause for reopening the case as required by §350(b) of the Bankruptcy Code: the State offered no substantial bankruptcy-related purpose for seeking access to the documents at issue (and several plainly non-bankruptcy-related purposes), and the court concluded that, even if it had, the relevant factors set forth in governing caselaw weigh decisively against reopening the case, including that the State is not entitled to relief from the protective order because there is no applicable legal authority for granting it such relief. In the alternative, the court denied the State's request for access to the sealed filings based on the lack of legal authority for the requested relief and because disclosure of the documents to persons other than those authorized by the protective order, which includes neither the State nor its employees, is not warranted under the circumstances. In re Kumm, Case No. 23-22866 (August 2024) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger The chapter 7 debtor moved to reopen his bankruptcy case to pursue an adversary proceeding seeking a determination that the debt he owed to the Department of Education was not excluded from discharge by section 523(a)(8). The court initially denied the motion, determining that the debtor had not made a showing of why reopening the case was necessary to file the adversary proceeding to request a determination of dischargeability. The debtor filed a “renewed” motion to reopen, asserting that the Department of Education was requiring the debtor to reopen his case before the Department would conduct a review of his federal student loans under the Department’s internal procedures. The court construed the “renewed” motion as a motion for reconsideration and denied that motion, determining that there were no grounds to grant relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from the final order denying the motion to reopen, and concluding, among other things, that the court has jurisdiction over a section 523(a)(8) adversary proceeding regardless of whether the underlying bankruptcy case is open or closed. Although denying the motion for reconsideration, the court reopened the case sua sponte, ruling that Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(b) authorizes (though does not require) reopening to file a complaint requesting a declaration of dischargeability and the Department’s refusal to evaluate the debtor’s student loan debt under its internal procedures unless the bankruptcy case is open adequately amounted to cause under section 350(b) to reopen. In addition to reopening the case, the court ordered as follows: "For all cases and adversary proceedings assigned to the author of this decision and order, the Clerk is directed to reopen any closed bankruptcy case of a debtor who files a complaint requesting a judgment declaring a student loan debt to be dischargeable and reclose the case after entry of judgment or a final order in the resulting adversary proceeding. The Clerk is directed not to await a motion to reopen. In such instances, the court will reopen all the cases sua sponte based on the reasoning of this decision and order." In re Greenpoint Asset Management II LLC, Case No. 21-25900 (June 2024) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger The court entered an opinion and order denying debtor Greenpoint Asset Management II, LLC’s motion to reconsider the court’s March 18, 2024 order determining that there was cause to convert or dismiss the debtor’s chapter 11 case, and determined that dismissal was in the best interests of creditors and the estate. In re Weylock, Case No. 18-30208 (April 2024) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger The chapter 13 debtors filed an objection to a mortgage creditor's response to the trustee's notice of final cure payment. The court construed the creditor's response to state that the debtors are current on postpetition payments for purposes of 11 U.S.C. §1322(b)(5), despite the outstanding postpetition fees, charges, and expenses listed in the response, and declined to act on the debtors' objection, which should have been filed (if at all) as a motion for a determination of final cure and payment under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1(h). In re Goldapske, Case No. 19-23754 (March 2024) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger The debtors filed a motion to modify the confirmed chapter 13 plan, purporting in relevant part to merely clarify the plan's existing terms: that payments under the plan began 30 days after the petition was filed. The trustee objected to the debtors' proffered construction of the plan, arguing that payments under the plan began after the plan was confirmed, and further objected to modification of the confirmed plan in accordance with the debtors' motion. The court agrees with the trustee's reading of the confirmed plan's terms and that 11 U.S.C. §1329(a) does not permit the modification of a confirmed plan to change the plan's effective date, i.e., the beginning of the period for payments under the plan, for purposes of 11 U.S.C. §1322(d), and the applicable commitment period, for purposes of 11 U.S.C. §1325(b). But the debtors' motion might instead be construed as a permissible request to reduce the time for payments under the confirmed plan, so the court afforded the trustee additional time to supplement her objection to the motion. Williams v. City of Milwaukee (In re Williams), Adv. Proc. No. 11-02527 (February 2024) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger The court entered a decision and order denying the pro se debtor’s request for relief from orders entered in his closed adversary proceeding. In re Greenpoint Tactical Income Fund LLC, Case No. 19-29613 (February 2024) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger The court confirmed the debtor's chapter 11 plan in May 2022. In August 2023 the debtor's former managing members moved the court to compel the reorganized debtor to pay amounts the former managing members asserted they were due under the plan. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, declaring that the former managing members had administrative claims that are due and owing but denying other requests for relief, including a request to compel the reorganized debtor to make the required payments. |