Skip to main content

Opinions


    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. 

    In re John and Christine Wilson (January 2012) -- Judge J.E. Shapiro
    Creditor objected to debtor-Christine Wilson's claimed homestead exemption based on an “Agreement to Keep Property Separate” entered into between debtors John and Christine before their marriage. The court found that the subsequent marriage of the debtors did not terminate the agreement and therefore the homestead was the sole property of John. The court disallowed debtor-Christine's claimed exemption

    In re Darrell Edwards, Case No. 11-23195, Debtor v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Adv. No. 11-2505 (December 2011) -- Judge M.D. McGarity
    Secured creditor's motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state a claim was granted. Bank had standing to enforce the Note and Mortgage.

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.S. v. Glenda Carter (December 2011) -- Judge P. Pepper
    The Court denied the plaintiff credit card company's motion for default judgment. The Court held that, even taking together the complaint, the brief in support of the motion for default judgment, and the affidavit in support of the motion, the plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that it was entitled to the presumption of nondischargeability, nor had it alleged sufficient facts to prove a prima facie case of actual fraud.