OpinionsThe district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision and order dismissing appellant's adversary claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank NA and Federal National Mortgage Association. WiscTex, LLC v. Galesky, Adv. Proc. No. 20-02146 (December 2022) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger WiscTex, LLC, objected to Michael Galesky's discharge in his underlying chapter 7 case under 11 U.S.C.§727(a)(2), (3), (4) & (5). After a bench trial, based on the facts shown by the evidence presented, and considering the arguments for relief that WiscTex properly raised and developed in its post-trial briefs, the court concluded that WiscTex failed to prove that it is entitled to denial of Galesky's discharge under any of the cited paragraphs of §727(a). Ryan v. Branko Prpa MD, LCC, 55 F.4th 1108 (7th Cir. 2022) (December 2022) -- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Rodney Ryan signed a worker's compensation settlement with his employer that set aside $400,000 for disbursement to the doctors who treated him for his workplace injury. Ryan then filed for bankruptcy and tried to keep those funds for himself while having his debt to his doctors eliminated. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders sustaining the creditor's objection to the exemption and granting the creditor's motion for summary judgment. Affirmed. Ramos v. Lieske, No. 22-cv-1266-BHL, 2022 WL 17581830 (E.D. Wis. December 12, 2022) (December 2022) -- District Court The debtor sought the bankruptcy court's permission to modify the monthly payment amount of a chapter 13 repayment plan while maintaining the extended repayment period previously approved under the now-repealed Section 1329(d). The district certified the matter for direct appeal to the Seventh Circuit. Layng v. Aydt, No. 22-cv-0096-LA (E.D. Wis. December 5, 2022) (December 2022) -- District Court The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying debtor his discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). Marty v. Mohela, No. 19-cv-1263-PP, 2022 WL 17092076 (E.D. Wis. November 21, 2022) (November 2022) -- District Court The debtor filed an appeal from the bankruptcy court's judgment granting the University Accounting Service, LLC's and the United States Department of Education's motions for summary judgment. The debtor alleged that his student loans subjected him to undue hardship and asked the court to declare his student loan debt to be dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The bankruptcy court dismissed the appellants claims. Affirmed. Reinhart Foodservice LLC v. Schlundt, 646 B.R. 478 (E.D. Wis. 2022) (October 2022) -- District Court The district court held that under the plain terms of the Bankruptcy Code, as well as the "conduct test", debtor's liability under a prepetition personal guaranty for debt arising from postpetition transactions was a postpetition liability that was not discharged in the debtor's bankruptcy. Reversed and remanded. In re Greenpoint Tactical Income Fund LLC, Case No. 19-29613 (October 2022) -- Chief Judge G.M. Halfenger Freeborn & Peters LLP represented the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders for Greenpoint Tactical Income Fund LLC in these jointly-administered case. After plan confirmation Freeborn requested approval of its fees and expenses and the debtors filed a limited objection, which the court overruled. In re Lewis, Case. No. 18-26550-BEH, 2022 WL 7171238 (October 2022) -- Judge B.E. Hanan The Chapter 13 debtor sought to amend two prior court orders: (1) the order confirming his most recent Chapter 13 plan—which provided for a plan payment period of 84 months, under now-expired 11 U.S.C. section 1329(d)—and (2) a “doomsday” order requiring him to make timely plan payments to the trustee for six months. The debtor sought to amend the prior confirmation order to change the amount of his required plan payments for a several-month period, and also sought relief from the doomsday order by asking that the trustee’s ability to seek immediate dismissal of his case be predicated on whether he made payments under his proposed revised payment schedule, rather than the payment schedule imposed by his confirmed plan. Although the debtor avoided describing his first request as a plan modification under 11 U.S.C. section 1329, the Court considered that the substance of the relief sought appeared to qualify as a modification of the type described in section 1329(a). To the extent the debtor's request to amend the confirmation order was the equivalent of a plan modification, it would result in a plan payment period exceeding 60 months, in contravention of the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 1329(c), and could not be granted. Alternately, if the debtor’s request to amend the confirmation order were viewed solely as a motion for relief under Civil Rule of Federal Procedure 60(b)(1) or (6), it did not establish excusable neglect or any extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant relief from a final order. As for the debtor's companion request for relief from the prior “doomsday” order, the Court found that the moving papers appeared to state a basis for relief, but held its ruling an abeyance to allow the debtor an opportunity to supply evidence—rather than counsel argument—to convince the court that there was a compelling reason to reconsider its prior non-final order. In re Nelson, Case No. 19-24458-beh, and In re Ramos, Case No. 20-21169-beh, 646 B.R. 810 (on appeal) (October 2022) -- Judge B.E. Hanan Chapter 13 debtors who previously extended their plan payment periods beyond 60 months under now-expired 11 U.S.C. section 1329(d) could not modify another aspect of their plans (such as the amount of plan payments) while retaining the extended payment period. Under the plain language of 11 U.S.C. section 1329(c), a court cannot confirm a plan that expressly provides for payments over a period that exceeds 60 months. |