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

04 B 75363

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

04 B 02682, 04 A 02054

The debtor’s former spouse initiated an adversary proceeding against the debtor to determine whether the debtor’s obligation under a marital settlement agreement to hold him harmless on certain joint liabilities was excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(5) and (a)(15). On a motion for summary judgment, the court found that the debt owed by the debtor to her former spouse was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

In re Lugean Brooks
March 30, 2005

04 B 39514

Prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing, a “Consent Judgment of Foreclosure” was entered in a suit filed in state court to dispossess the debtor of his residence under the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law. The property was purchased under an installment land contract. The debtor’s proposed chapter 13 plan attempted to cure his default under the installment land contract. The debtor filed a motion requesting the court to vacate its prior order denying confirmation of his chapter 13 plan. The debtor also moved to have his chapter 13 plan confirmed over the objection of the official title holders and the sellers under an installment land contract. The court denied the debtor’s motion and found that the debtor held merely a possessory interest in the property at the time of filing and did not possess a right to cure the default in a chapter 13 plan under 11 U.S.C. §§ 108(b) and 1322(c).

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

04 B 38235

04 A 04446, 04 A 04443

04 B 23758, 04 A 04032

Chief Judge Pamela S. Hollis

03 B 42061, 03 A 04790

Plaintiff sought finding that state court sanctions judgment against defendant was nondischargeable pursuant to 523(a)(6). At summary judgment, court had ruled that only issue for trial was whether defendant had the subjective knowledge that plaintiffs were substantially certain to be injured by his frivolous pleadings. Following trial, court held that defendant did have such subjective knowledge and therefore his debt was declared nondischargeable.

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer