Opinions

The District of Northern Illinois offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to 2013, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Subscribe to All Opinions

Judge Donald R. Cassling

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

14 B 11526
In this matter an attorney retained under a Court-Approved Retention Agreement ("CARA") in a Chapter 13 case initially failed to seek fees for pursuing a Motion for Damages for a violation of the automatic stay and instead decided that she was entitled to $3000 in fees in addition to the $4000 flat fee.
This court ruled that the CARA requires attorneys to pursue damages and injunctions for violations of the automatic stay and the discharge. The opinion covers attorneys' duties under Section 329 of the Bankruptcy Code  and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017  to disclose initial and subsequent fee agreements.

 15 B 37632
Seventeen days after the Debtors modified their confirmed Chapter 13 plan the Trustee asked to have their case dismissed on term of plan grounds because it would take 86 months to complete plan payments. The court denied the motion ruling that the court can not confirm a plan projected to last for more than sixty months as limited by Bankruptcy Code sections 1322(d)(1)-(2) and 1329(c) but that dismissal is not mandated if a debtor needs a reasonable period of time to cure an arrearage incurred during the plan term.

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

In re Rade Petrovic
November 16, 2016

16 B 18969

Judge Janet S. Baer

15 B 19829, 15 A 00550
The Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint against the Debtor seeking a determination that the debt owed to the Plaintiff by the Debtor in connection with an unsecured loan is not dischargeable pursuant to §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B).  The Plaintiff argued that the loan was procured by false pretenses with respect to the purpose of the loan and through actual fraud because the Debtor had not intended to repay the loan.  The Plaintiff also argued that the Debtor misrepresented her financial condition by failing to disclose a new mortgage obligation when the loan was made.  The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to demonstrate fraud under any of its arguments.  Accordingly, the Court held that the debt at issue is not excepted from discharge under §§ 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B).

13 B 43900, 15 A 00140
The chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) filed a six-count adversary complaint against American Express Centurion Bank, Inc. (“American Express”), seeking to avoid and recover from American Express an allegedly preferential or fraudulent transfer made by Katina Callas, the Debtor’s non-filing spouse (“Katina”), to American Express pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 548(a)(1), and 550(a).  American Express did not challenge the avoidability of the transfer; rather, it sought summary judgment only on Counts II and V, the recovery claims of the complaint.  Asserting an affirmative defense under § 550(b)(1), American Express contended that the Trustee could not recover the transfer from American Express as an immediate or subsequent transferee of Katina.  The Court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that the uncontested facts demonstrated that American Express took the transfer for value, in good faith, and without knowledge of the voidability of the transfer.  Accordingly, the Court found that American Express established a valid affirmative defense to liability under § 550(b)(1).  As such, the Court granted American Express’s motion for partial summary judgment and entered judgment on Counts II and V of the complaint in favor of American Express.

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

14 A 00403 and 15 A 00198 (Consolidated for trial), 14 B 10105

Chief Judge Bruce W. Black

In re Spiro Lempesis
September 28, 2016

13 B 38994

Judge Timothy A. Barnes

In re Ace Track Co., Ltd.
September 13, 2016

15 B 13819
Upon the Amended Motion for Order Granting Protection under 11 U.S.C. § 1522, brought by a creditor in the above-captioned chapter 15 case, held:  The motion raises serious concerns regarding the propriety of actions purportedly taken by the debtor in the chapter 15 case with respect to assets in the United States.  However, the motion is predicated on section 1522 of the Bankruptcy Code, which is inapplicable, and appears to seek no relief other than by declaration of the extent of the law.  As a result, insofar as the Memorandum Decision clarifies the extent of the law, the motion is GRANTED.  Otherwise, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Pages