08bk28743, 25ap00253
The Debtor’s chapter 11 plan was confirmed in 2010 and contemplated placing the Debtor’s assets (two adjacent properties in Mexico) in a Trust. The Trust would sell those properties for the benefit of creditors. Despite the confirmation order stating the plan had been substantially consummated, the properties were never transferred. In 2025, the Trust filed an adversary proceeding against the attorney representing in Mexico for declaratory and injunctive relief. The attorney for the Trust filed a Motion to Dismiss the Adversary Proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that it did not have arising in, arising under, or related to jurisdiction under Seventh Circuit precedent.

23bk11753, 24ap00221
Pre-petition contract purporting to transfer rights to tax incremental financing (TIF) payments from debtor to creditor was not a true assignment exempted from perfection under UCC § 9-109(d)(7) (810 ILCS 5/9-109(d)(7)). Although the contract was titled “Absolute Assignment” and purported to “assign” debtor’s rights to the payments to creditor, debtor retained a reversionary interest and creditor’s ownership was tied exclusively to repayment of the debt. Following the test from Voboril v. First Bank Fin. Ctr. (In re Voboril), 568 B.R. 797, 799 (E.D. Wis. 2017), the term “assign” did not control where the debt was not reduced on account of the contract and where other contractual language indicated that the creditor retained the right to a deficiency, would lose the right to receive TIF payments if some other source paid off the debt, and had to account to the debtor for any surplus payment over the outstanding amount of the debt. Under the totality of the circumstances, the contract created a security interest that the creditor failed to perfect, and the payments were rightfully part of the bankruptcy estate.

25bk01345
Creditor’s claim was barred after filing it over one year past the bar date despite receiving proper notice. It failed to meet the excusable neglect standard as set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), because the large claim would likely be prejudicial to the debtor, the extraordinary length of delay in filing would slow down judicial proceedings, and the reason for delay was well within counsel’s control. Although there was no evidence of bad faith, counsel for the creditor was not proactive in filing the proof of claim, did not submit evidence supporting the reasons for the delay, and did not timely request an extension.

25bk01345
The Chapter 11 Trustee filed a motion to estimate the Estate of Sean Richards’ claim against the Debtor under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act and Survival Act so he can file a chapter 11 plan on behalf of the Debtor. The court heard from expert witness Thomas L. Hogan of TLH Consulting. Mr. Hogan was the only witness who testified at the hearing and after hearing his testimony and cross examination, the court found him credible and estimated the Richards’ claim at $68,000,000.00.

25bk01345, 26ap00270
On February 11, 2026, Seaver Business Acquisition (Seaver) filed a complaint in DuPage County against Douglas Fuller, Susan Groenewold, Adam Fuller, Colin Fuller, Ethan Fuller, and Paula Fuller (Guarantors). Seaver then filed a Notice of Removal in DuPage County on March 11, 2023 and in this court on March 23, 2026. The Guarantors filed a Motion for Remand on May 12, 2026, arguing that Seaver’s Notice of Removal was untimely filed. The court denied the Motion for Remand finding that under Rule 9027 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and section 1446 of Title 28, a Notice of Removal is effective when filed in federal court and state court and notice is provided to all other parties. Because the court had no evidence of when the complaint was served on the Guarantors and no parties raised service as an issue, it found service was proper. The court denied the Guarantors’ Motion for Remand because it was untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1447.

24bk14828, 25ap00257
The court found debt owed to American Community Bank by Debtor non-dischargable under Section 523(a)(2)(B) of the Code. Debtor lied about his and his companies’ financial condition to obtain a loan from American Community Bank. Debtor first obtained a loan from Fifth Third Bank, which he and his estranged wife eventually acquired by executing an Assignment and Assumption Agreement. This gave them a first position lien on the loan. Debtor then obtained a loan and revolving line of credit from American Community Bank and failed to disclose that he and his estranged wife held a first position lien on the Fifth Third Bank loan. Relying on Debtor’s offered financial condition, American Community Bank extended a loan it never would have had it known about Debtor’s position on the Fifth Third loan.

25bk18742; 25bk11248; 25bk17705
The court held that Semrad’s fee agreement with chapter 7 debtors violates Sections 526 and 528 of the Bankruptcy Code and Local Rule 2016-1. Semrad routinely represents chapter 7 debtors for no money down and requires debtors to sign an agreement promising to pay postpetition. After filing the petition, Semrad then charges $2400 to $2600, and if a client refuses to sign a post-petition agreement promising to pay or fails to pay, then Semrad threatens to withdraw as counsel. The court held that Semrad was charging clients post-petition for prepetition work, which it may not do. The court ordered disgorgement of any fees collected in the consolidated cases.

13bk1431, 13ap1431
Plaintiffs filed an adversary complaint seeking loans it made to Debtor nondischargeable under 523(a). Plaintiffs also sought to pierce the corporate veil to make Debtor personally liable. The court found Dr. Siragusa’s claim dischargeable because he filed his complaint beyond Illinois’ five-year statute of limitations for fraud claims. Because piercing the corporate veil attaches to the substantive claim and is not itself an independent claim, that was also time barred. As to Dana Siragusa and Robert Joseph Siragusa, the court found the loans nondischargeable under the receipt benefit theory whereby a Debtor can be held liable if he benefits from a fraud committed. The court will hold a status hearing to determine damages for Dana and Robert Joseph Siragusa.

25bk12829
The Debtor filed its second chapter 11 petition in two years. The prior case was dismissed for lack of authority to file. There is again a lack of authority to file in the present case, which the court dismisses under Section 1112(b) of the Code. The court found cause to dismiss as disputes at the Debtor’s Parent level are paralyzing the Debtor’s ability to move forward, and no reasonable likelihood of the proposal and confirmation of a plan exists. The court also found a lack of good faith as it appears the Debtor filed this petition to avoid appointment of a receiver in the state court.

24bk16719
The court awarded Debtor $2,500 after creditors violated the discharge injunction by sending two Wage Deduction Notices to Debtor. Debtor’s attorney submitted a Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs totaling $57,057.90. The court denied this petition as fees were reasonable under sections 329 and 330 of the Bankruptcy Code because Debtor’s attorney violated rules 3.3 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional conduct by filing false pleadings that she failed to amend and for misrepresenting the facts of this case to the court.

24bk16719
The court denied motion to vacate sanctions order for violation of the discharge injunction and set the matter for hearing on damages. The creditor and law firm that the court found in violation of the discharge injunction continued to send notices of garnishment to the debtor after receiving notice of the chapter 7 petition and the imposition of the automatic stay, and after receiving notice of the discharge injunction. Although the creditor did not receive direct notice, notice was imputed to the creditor as its attorney in the ongoing post judgment collection action In re Herman, 737 F.3d 449, 454 (7th Cir. 2013). The court will determine damages at a hearing to be scheduled.

25bk01345
After a multi-day trial that revealed several instances of gross mismanagement, selfdealing, and a serious conflict of interest, the court found that appointing a chapter 11 trustee was appropriate under section 1104(a) of the bankruptcy code.

24bk18092, 25ap00028
Motion to dismiss state court confessed judgment is granted as the confessed judgment was void. The document in which the confessed judgment was contained did not contain the amount that was being confessed.

24bk05142
The court sustained Debtor’s objection to late-filed claim. Creditor, who previously registered through the Bankruptcy Noticing Service for email service, is deemed to have proper service via email if the email notice does not “bounce back”.

23bk06974
The court denied the Trustee’s motion to modify the Debtor’s chapter 13 plan. The Debtor was involved in a motor vehicle accident and was injured. Afterwards, the Debtor hired a personal injury attorney and amended his Schedules to disclose the personal injury claim. The court determined that the Trustee’s motion to modify was premature because the potential claim is unliquidated and for an uncertain amount as the Debtor has yet to file a personal injury claim. Under Section 1329 of the Bankruptcy Code, the court is not compelled to modify a plan due to a potential increase in a debtor’s ability to pay. The Trustee is not precluded from filing another motion to modify, and the court will determine if the claim meaningfully and sufficiently increases the Debtor’s ability to pay.

25bk09698
The court denied the debtor’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his chapter 7 case. The chapter 7 filing was the debtor’s third bankruptcy petition in the last year. Although the schedules filed in this and the prior cases were less than complete, the debtor is the owner of multi-unit apartment building and was previously subject to an order placing the mortgage holder as mortgagee in possession. After the filing of the chapter 7 petition, the debtor failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Bankruptcy Code and refused to allow the trustee’s agent (the mortgagee in possession) collect rents and speak with tenants. The trustee alleges that there is equity in the apartment building and that creditors will be better off if the case remains in the chapter 7 posture instead of returning to state court. Furthermore, the debtor did not demonstrate good faith.

23bk11753, 24ap00184
Plaintiff filed an adversary proceeding seeking to deny the debtors’ discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)(A) and (a)(5). HELD: The debtors’ numerous false statements and omissions were sufficient to support a finding of fraudulent intent under § 727(a)(4), and under that section the discharge will be denied.

25bk00341, 25ap00068
Plaintiff filed a 12-count adversary complaint, including claims over which the bankruptcy court had “related to” jurisdiction. Defendant stated it did not consent to the bankruptcy court’s entry of final orders and moved to dismiss several counts and strike some allegations. HELD: The court has jurisdiction to hear the motion to dismiss, which in this case is not a final order. Some of the counts survive; others are dismissed without prejudice.

24bk01640
City of Chicago filed an application of administrative expenses for fines Debtor incurred for post-petition municipal code violations related to Debtor’s vacant lots. Debtor objected that the lots were vacant and produced no income, and thus they did not qualify under 11 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(A). HELD: Under Steenes, the fines are allowed administrative expenses.

23bk00363, 23ap00095
Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint, asking the court to find non-dischargeable a debt incurred by the Debtor’s conversion of the Plaintiff’s motorcycle. HELD: The debt is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).