You are here
Judge Jacqueline P. Cox - Opinions
Description | Date Issued |
---|---|
In re Al-Haroon Husain 14 MP 90007 Mr. Husain will be permanently suspended from the practice of law before the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois due to the nature and extent of his misconduct. The suspension is effective July 31, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Husain is also ordered to refund the fees received from the clients listed in the Memorandum Opinion. The Order will be reported to the Executive Committee of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and to the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. |
07/09/2015 |
In re MCK Millennium Centre Parking, LLC; Gina B. Krol, not individually but as the duly assigned Chapter 7 Trustee v. Key Bank National Association, et al. 12 B 24676, 14 A 00392 Because the parties did not consent to the Court’s entry of a final order on the fraudulent transfer claims, the Court submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9033. On the preferential transfer claim, the Court determined that it had both statutory and constitutional authority to enter its order dismissing the claim, with prejudice. The Court recommended dismissal of the actual fraud transfer claims without prejudice, because those claims were not plead with specificity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). |
04/30/2015 |
In re Michael Bahary & Steven Bahary Partnership 11 B 41826 Pursuant to the Confirmed Plan, the Reorganized Debtor surrendered the Grand Avenue Property to Banco Popular, its mortgagee, by giving it a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure to satisfy Banco Popular’s secured claim. Napleton was not scheduled as a creditor in the Reorganized Debtor’s bankruptcy and did not have notice of it. The Court ruled that the transfer to the mortgagee was not subject to the Right of First Refusal which vested only if the Debtor, as Napleton's transferee, wanted to sell the property to a bona fide third party. The Debtor did not sell the property in issue; it surrendered collateral to a lienholder. In the April 1, 2015 Amended Memorandum Opinion, the Court declined to enter findings of contempt against Napleton and its attorney. |
04/01/2015 |
In re Mayer Eisenstein, M.D.; Jerry Haugland, et al. v. Mayer Eisenstein, M.D. 13 B 01449, 13 A 01050 The crux of the Complaint is that the Debtor falsely stated that the settlement would be secured by property at 1101 Dodge, Evanston, Illinois (“Dodge Property”) in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) which excepts from discharge debts incurred fraudulently under certain circumstances. The Debtor did not arrange for the Dodge Property to be titled in a land trust as required by the 2008 court order. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Debtor wilfully and maliciously injured them in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, finding that the Debtor intentionally misled the Plaintiffs when he represented that he would pledge the Dodge Property to secure the settlement amount, and that fraud created the debt. In so ruling, the Court relied, in part, on Dr. Eisenstein's admission at trial that he had no intention of having the property placed into a land trust to secure payment of the $1.275 million settlement until a formal settlement agreement got executed. The July 21, 2008 order did not condition the settlement on the entry of a subsequent agreement.
|
02/11/2015 |
In re Michael Bahary & Steven Bahary Partnership 11 B 41826
|
01/13/2015 |
In re Samuel L. Brimmage; Samuel L. Brimmage v. Quantum3 Group LLC and Elite Recovery Acquisitions, LLC 13 B 29753, 14 A 00674 |
01/09/2015 |
In re Dennis Wians & Dorothea Wians; Kenneth Wians, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Clara Wians v. Dennis Wians and Dorothea Wians 13 B 38149, 14 A 00177 In support of his Motion, the Plaintiff asserted that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the Defendant from relitigating the issues previously resolved in a prior state court matter, which proceeded to final judgment, creating the $196,000 debt at issue herein. The Court granted the Motion, finding that the prior state court order contained specific findings establishing that a fiduciary relationship existed between the Defendant and his mother, within the meaning of § 523(a)(4) and that Defendant committed acts of defalcation with the requisite state of mind, as required by the Supreme Court in Bullock v. BankChampaign N.A.,133 S. Ct. 1754, 1759 (2013). |
12/17/2014 |
In re Luis Medina, Jr. 14 B 27755 The Court also imposed a one-year bar to refiling under 11 U.S.C. § 349(a), finding that the successive filings were an intentional abuse of the protections afforded debtors under the Bankruptcy Code. |
11/07/2014 |
In re Tiffany Armstrong 14 B 18107 The Court concluded that Oasis failed to present any newly discovered evidence and failed to show that the Court made a manifest error of law in reaching its decision. |
11/07/2014 |
In re Castle Home Builders, Inc., et al. 11 B 19428 (jointly administered) The Court granted the Motion, finding that Everhome’s refusal to conform its payment coupons and loan files to the economic terms of the Confirmed Plans some 15 months after confirmation, were done in blatant disregard of bankruptcy law and the terms of the Reorganized Debtor’s Plans. The Court determined that Everhome’s conduct warranted the imposition of sanctions in the amount of $100,000 and ordered that Everhome pay the Reorganized Debtor $35,839 in attorneys' fees. |
10/21/2014 |
In re Arturo Vazquez 13 B 32174 Trustee David Leibowitz objected, arguing that the child tax credit does not qualify as a “public assistance benefit” under the Illinois statute which allows debtors to exempt such. In 2003 a bankruptcy court ruled that the nonrefundable portion of the child tax credit was not a public assistance benefit because it was available to higher income taxpayers and that the refundable additional child tax credit was a public assistance benefit that could be exempted because it benefited lower income taxpayers. The Illinois statute does not limit or condition the exemption. The Court overruled the Trustee’s objection, rejecting the argument that the Illinois statute was meant to benefit lower income individuals only and declined to make the policy choice that a debtor who claimed five personal exemptions/dependents on his tax return while reporting income of $68,824 was too affluent to benefit from the child tax credit. The Illinois exemption statute provides for the exemption of public assistance benefits, without regard to whether they are refundable or are available only to lower income debtors. The Court explained that it is the role of the legislature, rather than the court, to limit the availability of the exemption. |
09/08/2014 |
Estate of Stanley Cora v. John C. Jahrling (In re John C. Jahrling) 12 B 50628, 13 A 00688 A judgment for $26,000 was entered in state court against the debtor in 2007 on a legal malpractice claim. The Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on Count I, and determined that Jahrling’s conduct in representing Cora in the sale of his home without talking to him to discern what Cora wanted and how to accomplish his goal, was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person as well as any Illinois attorney would observe in Jahrling’s situation. The court also found that Jahrling acted recklessly and in brazen disregard of his fiduciary duty when he ignored his basic duty to communicate with the client, to prepare for the engagement and to pursue his client’s interests diligently. The Court entered Judgment in favor of the debtor-defendant on the remaining counts, finding that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof on claims under section 523(a)(6) for wilful and malicious injury and section 727 for failure to maintain records and to account for a deficiency or loss of assets. |
08/21/2014 |
Philip V. Martino, Trustee v. Eugenia Miszkowicz, Mark Miszkowicz and Miszkowicz Investment Limited Partnership (In re Steven Miszkowicz and Connie Gipple) 11 B 40844, 13 A 00927 |
07/24/2014 |
In re Veronica Aguilar and Jose E. Aguilar; Robert J. Sargis v. Veronica and Jose E. Aguilar 10 B 38275, 13 A 00299 |
06/09/2014 |
In re Daniel Adam Zarco, Sr. 13 B 25463 |
03/25/2014 |
Morris Senior Living, LLC, Morris Real Estate Holdings II, LLC 12 B 05364 |
01/24/2014 |
In re Brown’s Chicken & Pasta, Inc.; Popgrip, LLC v. Brown’s Chicken & Pasta, Inc. and Howard Korenthal, not individually but solely as Liquidating Trustee of Brown’s Chicken & Pasta, Inc., Joli Inc., Life A.B., LLC and Just Toni’s v. 09 B 49094, 11 A 2395 |
12/16/2013 |
In re Edison Mission Energy, et al. 12 B 49219 (jointly administered) |
11/19/2013 |
In re 1555 Wabash LLC 11 B 51502 Evans Construction Company (“Evans”) filed a secured Mechanics Lien claim in the amount of $398,937.00 which represented amounts that were owed directly to Evans’ subcontractors. The Lender, Debtor's successor, objected to the claim, asserting a setoff for amounts paid directly to subcontractors and for amounts paid to correct construction work alleged to be defective. The Court reduced Evans claim to reflect amounts proven to be paid directly to subcontractors. However, after hearing the testimony of several witnesses, the Court determined that the Lender’s assertion that Evans produced faulty work was not supported by the evidence, as the defects complained of were explicitly contracted for by the parties. |
06/19/2013 |
In re Shelia L. Martin 09 B 42237 In this Chapter 13 proceeding, the Court granted the Debtor’s motion for sanctions, after a Mortgagee continued to collect the mortgage payments from both the Debtor and the Trustee despite the Court’s approval of a loan modification agreement. The Court’s opinion highlights the importance of parties examining whether loan modifications necessitate a subsequent chapter 13 plan amendment to accurately provide for treatment of mortgage arrears. |
04/26/2013 |