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 LaShonda A. Hunt

15bk38704, 16ap00110
Pro se debtor/plaintiff filed his adversary complaint against the United States Department of Education and Educational Credit Management Corporation, seeking to discharge over $400,000 in student loans pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8).  Following a trial, the court concludes that plaintiff has not met the “undue hardship” test.  Therefore, his student loan debts are not dischargeable.

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

In re Tiara Hill
February 22, 2018

17 B 27598

In re Charnette Walker
February 8, 2018

17 B 33957

17 B 03663

17 B 01356

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

In re John Jake Klein
February 16, 2018

16 B 08738

Judge Timothy A. Barnes

17 B 10230
Upon the application of a state court-appointed receiver for allowance and payment of administrative expenses, held:  The receiver has established that, on the petition date, it was a custodian for the purposes of payment under 11 U.S.C. § 543(c)(2) and priority of payment under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(E), and thus is entitled to assert a claim under both provisions.  As the receiver seeks payment from estate assets, the court applies the standard set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(E).  However, the receiver has not yet established that its claim meets that statute’s standards.  As a result, the receiver’s application is set for further hearing.

Judge Janet S. Baer

15 B 07325, 15 A 00866
Plaintiffs Estate of Rose M. Drabik, Mary Elizabeth Smith, Mary Katherine Paul, and chapter 7 trustee Brenda Porter Helms (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed an adversary complaint against James T. Drabik (the “Debtor”), seeking a denial of the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(3) and (a)(4).  The Plaintiffs argued that the Debtor was not entitled to a discharge because he failed to keep or preserve information from which his financial condition could be ascertained and because he provided false, misleading, or inaccurate information in his initial bankruptcy petition, schedules, and statement of financial affairs.  After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Court found that, given the documentary evidence and testimony at trial, the Debtor’s records were inadequate to allow the Court, the trustee, and the Debtor’s creditors to trace his financial dealings with any kind of accuracy and that the Debtor did not offer any reasonable justification for his failure to keep or preserve financial records.  Thus, the Court held that that failure supported denial of the Debtor’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3).  The Court further found that the Plaintiffs established that the Debtor “made a false oath or account” by filing initial bankruptcy documents with misstatements and omissions and that, together, those misrepresentations established a pattern of reckless indifference to the truth.  Accordingly, the Court also held that the Debtor was not entitled to a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A).  Based on these findings, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Debtor and, as such, denied the Debtor’s discharge.