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 A. Benjamin Goldgar

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

In re Hade Reynolds
July 25, 2018

18 B 03187

Judge Timothy A. Barnes

16bk09485
Upon a debtor’s motion for rule to show cause on alleged violations of the automatic stay, held: The debtor has established the requisite grounds for relief arising from the alleged stay violations only as it relates to creditor’s postconversion conduct. The creditor, the debtor’s preconversion bankruptcy counsel, did not violate the automatic stay by attempting to collect on unpaid postpetition fees in another forum during the pendency of the matter prior to conversion. Upon conversion to chapter 13, however, the preconversion fees were treated as prepetition ones and thus the continuation of the collection action violated the automatic stay. The motion is, therefore, GRANTED in part, DENIED in part and CONTINUED in part for a later hearing on additional actual damages.

14bk14023, 16ap00387
Upon the U.S. trustee’s complaint seeking to deny discharge for the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), wherein the U.S. trustee alleged that the debtor failed to disclose certain assets on her bankruptcy petition, held: The U.S. trustee has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor acted with fraudulent intent when failing to disclose certain assets on her bankruptcy petition. As a result, the debtor will not be denied a discharge on the grounds alleged. Judgment is entered in favor of the debtor.

Judge Deborah L. Thorne

In re Bryce Stirlen
July 24, 2018

17-bk-06666

Judge Carol A. Doyle

Judge Thomas M. Lynch

In re Hamm
July 9, 2018

17-81489
The Court sustained the Chapter 7 Trustee’s objection to the Debtor’s claimed exemption of an inherited retirement account because the account did not qualify for the Illinois exemption for retirement plans.

In re Miceli
July 9, 2018

17-82877
The Court sustained Associated Bank’s objection to confirmation of the Debtor’s proposed plan because the plan did not comply with the “equal monthly amounts” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I).

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

15 B 43653, 16 A 206
The court denied the Debtor a discharge of her student loan debts, finding that she can maintain more than a minimal standard of living if forced to repay them.

Pages