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

17 B 17844

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

In re Frank Villasenor
January 18, 2018

17 B 15830

10 B 27054

In re Charnette Walker
December 20, 2017

17 B 33957

Judge Carol A. Doyle

In re Kim Smiley
January 11, 2018

17 B 27169

Judge Janet S. Baer

17 B 11668
The chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case of Christopher V. Pratola pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c).  The trustee asserted that there was cause for dismissal because Pratola owed educational debt of approximately $591,223 which exceeded the noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debt limit of $394.725 set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 109(e).  Pratola argued that the educational debt was contingent and not subject to the debt limit because it was being paid under an income-based repayment plan.  The income-based repayment plan required monthly payments based on discretionary income and provided for the forgiveness of any remaining balance upon completion of a twenty-five year term.  The Court found that the educational debt was noncontingent for purposes of § 109(e) because it existed before the date of the filing of the petition and no future event needed to take place to fix its existence or amount.  Nevertheless, the Court found that there was no cause for dismissal under § 1307(c). After reviewing the relevant statutory language and case law, and determining that neither clearly required dismissal of the case, the Court examined the legislative history of § 109(e). The debt limits were created to stop owners of large business from filing under chapter 13 instead of chapter 11, not to preclude individuals with large amounts of educational debt from filing under chapter 13.  Accordingly, the Court denied the trustee’s motion to dismiss for lack of cause under § 1307(c).

Judge Timothy A. Barnes

17 B 03148
Upon the application for administrative expense brought by a party to whom a prepetition assignee of the debtor’s assets for the benefit of creditors became obligated, held: while the movant is not entitled to seek reimbursement under the provision affording custodians administrative expenses, the movant is entitled to protection as a party to whom a custodian became obligated.  The court sets such protection as a right to expense reimbursement from the estate with administrative priority under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b).  The application is, therefore, GRANTED.

17 B 10230, 17 A 00401
Upon the motions of two adversary defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, held:  The complaint states a plausible claim for declaratory judgment of the plaintiff’s interest, as prepetition receiver of property of the estate, in such property.  As a result, each motion is DENIED.Upon the motions of two adversary defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, held:  The complaint states a plausible claim for declaratory judgment of the plaintiff’s interest, as prepetition receiver of property of the estate, in such property.  As a result, each motion is DENIED.

Pages