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

Chief Judge Pamela S. Hollis

06 B 16620

Prepetition, movant purchased the unpaid real estate taxes due for Debtors' residence. Debtors filed for relief under Chapter 13 just prior to expiration of the redemption period. Debtors scheduled the tax debt for payment to the county, and confirmed a plan that provided for payment of the tax debt during the term of the plan. Movant sought relief from the stay to proceed in state court after expiration of the redemption period. HELD: Movant is a creditor and the tax debt is a secured claim that can be paid over time through a Chapter 13 plan. No cause to grant relief from stay and motion denied.

In Re: Stephen A. Weiss
October 23, 2007

07 B 06781

In this individual chapter 11, creditors moved for relief from stay based on purported underlying security interests in debtor's interests in various partnerships and LLCs. Creditors' interest arose out of an assignment of interests executed by debtor as security for two loans. Court found that under underlying operating agreements and Illinois law, debtor did not have authority to assign his interests without prior consent of other parties to the various agreements. Therefore, assignment was invalid. Accordingly, creditors did not have security interest and motion was denied.

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

05 B 16679

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

04 B 48014, 05 A 01624

Plaintiff Trustee and the Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the Trustee's adversary complaint. The adversary complaint sought avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and § 5 of the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act of the Debtor's pre-peition transfer of real estate to his wife, the Defendant. Prior to the transfer, the Debtor and his wife held the real estate as tenants by the entirety. The Trustee's adversary complaint also sought authority under 11 U.S.C. § 363(h) to sell the real estate. The Defendant argued that avoidance of the transfer will restore the property to the tenancy by the entirety estate that existed prior to the transfer being made and operate to keep the real estate beyond the reach of the Trustee's avoidance power. The Trustee argued that the tenancy by the entirety estate will not be revived once the transfer is avoided because whatever “entirety” existed prior to the transfer was voluntarily extinguished by the Debtor once the transfer was made. Moreover, even if the tenancy by the entirety comes back into existence after avoidance, 11 U.S.C. § 522(g) prohibits an exemption from being claimed in the real estate. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Trustee and against the Defendant on all counts of adversary complaint.

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

Pages