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 Jacqueline P. Cox

In re Laura Flores
July 20, 2006

06 B 02169

Prior to the petition date, the debtor’s non-filing spouse obtained title to property for which he executed a note secured by a mortgage which included an anti-modification provision. He later transferred title to his wife who did not assume the payment obligations of the note or the mortgage. A default on the mortgage note ensued and the wife filed this chapter 13 case seeking to pay the arrears in her reorganization plan. Mortgagee filed a motion to lift the automatic stay citing the debtor’s lack of privity of contract. The court held that because of United States Supreme Court precedent which defines "claim" to include obligations for which a debtor has no personal liability, only in rem liability, the debtor’s interest in the property could be included in a chapter 13 plan. The court also held that inclusion of the debt in the debtor’s plan did not impermissibly modify the lender’s rights under § 1322(b)(2) but instead provided extra protection as it gives the lender an additional person from whom to seek satisfaction of the underlying obligation. The court noted that Illinois law may dictate that a creditor-debtor relationship exists between the debtor and Mortgagee based upon the Illinois Family Expense Act and under an Illinois Supreme Court case that held that a lender's acceptance of an interim grantee's payments makes the grantee the primary obligor on a debt.

Chief Judge Bruce W. Black

Judge Carol A. Doyle

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

Judge Pamela S. Hollis

01 B 19852

Chapter 13 Trustee moved to dismiss case where debtor would have to continue to make payments beyond 5 years in order to complete her plan. Held: Although the court cannot confirm or modify a plan which would extend beyond 5 years, the fact that payments will be made for more than 5 years does not per se require dismissal under 1307(c). With that in mind, the court considered the particular factual circumstances and determined that cause for dismissal did not exist under 1307(c). Motion to dismiss denied.

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer