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 A. Benjamin Goldgar

In re Bob Okon
June 15, 2004

02 B 46207

In re John McAniff
May 21, 2004

02 B 38990, 03 A 04407, 03 A 04408

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

Judge Carol A. Doyle

Judge Eugene R. Wedoff

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

04 B 00114

Prior to the debtor filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy, the debtor’s personal residence was purchased by a third party at a foreclose sale initiated by the holder of the second mortgage against the property. The debtor and the successful bidder entered into an oral agreement whereby the debtor could retain the fee simple interest in her personal residence in exchange for the purchase price paid plus interest. Both parties agreed to extend the state court order for possession, which normally accompanies a sale-confirmation order, several times between August and December of 2003. The successful bidder alleged that the debtor filed her chapter 13 case for the sole purpose of delaying or thwarting its pursuit of an order for possession that was likely to be issued by the state court in the foreclosure proceeding. The successful bidder requested relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) or an order of dismissal with a 180-day bar against refiling pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1307(c) and 349(a) so that it could seek to have the debtor dispossessed from the property. The court concluded that under the totality of the circumstances, dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) and 11 U.S.C. § 349(a) was not appropriate, as the debtor had not abused the bankruptcy process. However, the court did hold that “cause” existed to grant relief from the automatic stay because the debtor no longer held an interest in the property.

03 B 45189

The debtor filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy after MB Financial Bank unexpectedly set off funds in one of its bank accounts to satisfy an overdue loan obligation. While a settlement to return some of those funds was pending, the debtor’s president loaned the debtor “emergency advances” to ensure a construction project could proceed smoothly and to pay employee insurance premiums. The advances were made without notice to other parties or prior court approval. The debtor moved to repay the advances as an administrative expense. Two creditors objected. At issue was whether the advances qualified as valid post-petition extensions of credit to the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 364. The Court held they were not since the advances were not incurred during the ordinary course of business as they were “emergency” advances. Also, the advances did not meet the vertical dimensions test that examines the reasonable expectations of creditors in light of their past relationship with the debtor and its incurrence of debt, including the amount, terms, frequency, sources, and timing of pre-petition extensions of credit from various sources. The Court also held that the debtor’s president did not hold a general unsecured claim since the advance was made post-petition.

Chief Judge Bruce W. Black

In Re: Robert Golek
April 15, 2004

00 B 37527
308 B.R. 332

Pages