OpinionsPursuant to the Wisconsin exemption statutes, debtor who lives part-time in rented apartment in Milwaukee and part-time in a mobile home she owns in Adams County can claim the homestead exemption for the Adams County property. She can do so in spite of the fact that all of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing on the matter indicated that the debtor considered the Milwaukee County apartment her legal residence. The Court found that the debtor "occupied" the Adams County residence for the purpose of the exemption, albeit on a part-time basis. In Re Action Transit, 07-27904 (January 2008) -- Judge P. Pepper Contract between debtor-in-possession and creditor was not a true lease, but was a security interest as defined in Wis. Stat. section 401.201(37), and therefore the debtor was not required to pay the creditor according to the terms of the contract. Rather, it could make adequate protection payments sufficient to protect the creditor's interest in the collateral. Swanson v. Green (In re Green), 2007 WL 4570590 (December 2007) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Debtors' discharge was denied based on § 727(a)(2) and (a)(4), when debtors failed to list personal property (Beanie Babies and Disney memorabilia) collected over many years and which debtors believed did not have value to anyone else. Court held that debtors should have listed property in general terms and given its value as unknown. 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. In re Luckett, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 3638 (October 2007) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Court interprets equal monthly payments provision of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) to allow lump sum payment only if made on the effective date of the plan. In Re Stoltz, 07-22864 (October 2007) -- Judge P. Pepper Chapter 13 plan which relied on the language of the Eastern District model plan could not be confirmed in the face of objections that it did not clearly direct the trustee to distribute the amount listed in the creditor's proof of claim rather than the amount listed in the plan, and that it did not clearly indicate when the debtors intended the property of the estate to revest in the debtors. Fritz v. USA Funding Corp. and GMAC Mortgage Corp., 06-2085. (BR case 05-45778) (October 2007) -- Judge P. Pepper The Court dismissed the plaintiffs'/debtors' Truth-in-Lending Act claims against defendant GMAC Mortgage Corp. in their entirety, and dismissed the plaintiffs'/debtors' TILA claims against defendant USA Funding Corp. in part, because (1) some claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, (2) others were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, and (3) still others failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The only claims to survive the motions to dismiss were the plaintiffs'/debtors' claims for declaratory judgment and damages against USA Funding Corp. for alleged violations to TILA. Elllsworth -v- Ellsworth (In re Ellsworth) (September 2007) -- Judge J.E. Shapiro Plaintiff, former wife of debtor, sought a judgment of nondischargeability against the debtor for failing to promptly notify her of a stock distribution he was to receive and which, under the terms of the parties' marital settlement agreement, was to be sold with the proceeds first to be used to pay certain debts and the balance to be divided by the parties. Instead of promptly notifying the plaintiff, the debtor placed the stock in a margin brokerage account in his sole name, which he used for his personal purposes. By the time the plaintiff finally received notice of the stock distribution, it had dramatically dropped in value (in excess of $442,000). The court found that the actions by the debtor constituted violations of 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(4) (for both defalcation by a fiduciary and embezzlement). The court declined to find that debtor's conduct constituted a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). In Re Davis 07-24688 (September 2007) -- Judge P. Pepper In a case in which the debtors' plan proposed to pay 100% to the unsecured creditors, the court overruled the Chapter 13 trustee's objection to the debtors' proposal to pay the consenting secured auto lender's claim outside the plan. In re Linda & Timothy Hardin, Case No. 03-31539 Published: In re Hardin, 375 B.R. 506 (September 2007) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Creditor with a security interest in chapter 13 debtors' motor vehicle moved for relief from stay after the vehicle was destroyed in an automobile accident postpetition and postconfirmation, in order to permit it to apply insurance proceeds paid by a third-party tortfeasor's insurer to its remaining secured and unsecured claims. The debtors and trustee objected, and disputed that the creditor had an interest in the insurance proceeds to the full extent of its remaining claims. The court granted the creditor's motion in part and denied it in part. The creditor's recovery of insurance proceeds paid by third party's insurance carrier after debtors' collateral was destroyed was limited to its allowed secured claim. |