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 Pamela S. Hollis

In re: Artra Group, Inc.
December 2, 2003

02 B 21522

An expert witness is not a "professional person" whose retention must be approved under 11 USC 327.

 

02 B 21522, 02 A 01086

The permanent injunction rejected by this court in September was amended to bar only those claims based on or derivative of injuries to the debtor or the estate, and the settlement agreement was approved.

 

In re: Willie L. Davis
October 27, 2003

03 B 01519

When a chapter 7 debtor redeems following conversion from chapter 13, under 11 USC 348(f)(1)(B) the redemption amount is the amount at which the allowed secured claim was valued in the confirmed chapter 13 plan.

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

In re Mary Will
November 20, 2003

02 B 36426

Although finance company’s allowed secured claim was paid in full in a prior chapter 13 case, which was later converted into a chapter 7, it refused to release the lien. After receiving a discharge in the chapter 7 case, the debtor filed another chapter 13 case but did not schedule the finance company as a creditor because it was her belief that the debt had been extinguished in the prior case. Having no notice of the new case, the finance company repossessed the vehicle and claimed that a fully secured balance still existed. The debtor filed a complaint against the finance company for damages and turnover of the car and alleged a willful violation of the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h). The finance company filed a motion to annul the automatic stay and objected to confirmation of the debtor’s chapter 13 plan. The court held that the finance company’s refusal to expeditiously return the car to the debtor once notified of the pending chapter 13 case was a willful violation of the automatic stay. As such, the motion to annul the automatic stay was denied. The debtor was granted costs and awarded attorney fees along with compensatory and punitive damages. The issue involving the objection to confirmation was not litigated.

In re Sandra Lee Wright
October 20, 2003

03 B 02687

Unsecured creditor moved to file a tardy proof of claim and to be included in the debtor’s chapter 13 plan. The creditor alleged that notice of the proof of claim filing deadline was sent to an incorrect address. The court held that it lacked authority under the Bankruptcy Code or the Bankruptcy Rules to grant the creditor’s request to file a late claim. The court further held that the Due Process Clause did not provide an equitable exception to the otherwise strict terms of the chapter 13 claims bar date because the Bankruptcy Code, when construed as a whole, provides other forms of relief to creditors who do not have actual knowledge of a bankruptcy case in time to exercise procedural rights essential for protecting their claims.

Judge Carol A. Doyle

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

Pages