You are here
Judge Jacqueline P. Cox - Opinions
Description | Date Issued |
---|---|
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 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 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 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 |
In re GAC Storage El Monte, LLC, et al. 11 B 40944 (jointly administered) In this memorandum opinion, the Court denied confirmation of the Debtor’s Third Amended Plan of Reorganization. The Court noted that to satisfy the Bankruptcy Code’s requirement that the Debtor’s Plan be fair and equitable, a plan must propose an interest rate adequate to assure the realization of the Bank’s claim. In this case, the Court determined that the interest rate advanced by the Debtor did not sufficiently capture the risk that the Debtor would not satisfy the Bank’s claim. The Court also determined that the Plan was not feasible because the Debtor failed to prove that the property would increase in value enough to give the Debtor sufficient equity to facilitate refinancing at the end of 7 years to fund a balloon payment to the Bank. Also, relying on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in In re Castleton Plaza, LP, No. 12-2639, 2013 WL 537269, and Bankruptcy Code Section 101(31)(B), the Court held that the nature of the plan warrants application of the absolute priority rule as the plan gave the Debtor’s insider preferential access to an investment opportunity in the Reorganized Debtor without allowing others to compete for that opportunity. The Court also granted the Bank’s request for relief from the automatic stay because the Debtor failed to show that there is a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization. |
03/19/2013 |
In re GAC Storage Lansing, LLC, et al. 11 B 40944 (jointly administered) In this memorandum opinion, the Court denied confirmation of the Debtor’s Amended Plan of Reorganization. The Court noted that to satisfy the Bankruptcy Code’s requirement that the Debtor’s Plan be fair and equitable, a plan must propose an interest rate adequate to assure the realization of the Bank’s claim. In this case, the Court determined that the interest rate advanced by the Debtor did not sufficiently capture the risk that the Debtor would not satisfy the Bank’s claim. The Court also determined that the Plan was not feasible because the Debtor failed to prove that the property would increase in value enough to give the Debtor sufficient equity to facilitate refinancing at the end of 7 years to fund a balloon payment to the Bank. The Court also granted the Bank’s request for relief from the automatic stay because the Debtor failed to show that there is a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization. |
01/10/2013 |
In re Andres Gacharna and Catherine E. Lindsay 12 B 08807 In this Chapter 13 proceeding, the Court sustained Creditors’ objection to confirmation of Debtors’ Plan, holding that the Debtors’ obligations under a Settlement Agreement with a former employer (including a non-compete clause) were non-monetary in nature, and therefore were not a "claim" for bankruptcy purposes. Only claims for money can be discharged. The Settlement Agreement included language that the non-monetary provisions of Articles 3 and 4 were the essence of the agreement and that should the Debtors fail to perform the duties prescribed in those provisions, injunctive relief would be appropriate to require the Debtors to perform the duties. The Court also noted that the provision governing attorney’s fees was not a compensation remedy, but was designed to make the prevailing party whole after the resolution of disputes. |
10/19/2012 |