Subscribe to All Opinions14bk33271, 14ap00859
Court denied creditor’s motion for summary judgment on an adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and 523 (a)(6), on the grounds that genuine issues of material fact existed as to debtor’s intent to defraud.
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.
Judge LaShonda A. Hunt
Eby-Brown Company, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company v. Khalid Najimi (In re: Khalid Najimi)
March 27, 2018
March 27, 2018
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 Janet S. Baer
13 B 09806, 13 A 00917
Jacob Thazhathuputhenpurac (the “Plaintiff”) filed an adversary complaint against former business partner Thomas Abraham (the “Debtor”), seeking a determination that a debt owed to him by the Debtor by virtue of a state court judgment was not dischargeable pursuant to §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) and objecting to the Debtor’s discharge under § 727(a)(3). Both parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the Plaintiff on the two nondischargeability counts and the Debtor on all three. No material facts were in dispute. The Plaintiff argued that the Debtor was precluded from re-litigating the factual issues decided by the state court under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Debtor contended that the elements needed to prevail pursuant to the statute under which the state court complaint had been brought were not identical to those required under §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) and that, thus, collateral estoppel was not applicable. The Court found that the factual issues sought to be precluded were the same as those that came before the state court for purposes of collateral estoppel and that the state court’s findings of fact established, as a matter of law, all of the elements required for nondischargeability under §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4). Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion, entered judgment in his favor, and denied the Debtor’s motion.
Judge Jacqueline P. Cox
In re Frank A. Santilli and Monica D. Santilli; Preferred Capital Funding of Illinois, LLC. v Frank Santilli
March 12, 2018
March 12, 2018
16 B 14713 Consolidated with 16 B 23020, 16 A 00707
The court found several debts nondischargeable where the debtor, an attorney, lied about and failed to repay clients' loans from settlement proceeds.
Judge Deborah L. Thorne
Fayyaz Karim and Lisa Karim v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Fayyaz Karim and Lisa Karim)
March 9, 2018
March 9, 2018
17 B 06548, 17 A 00380
Judge Jack B. Schmetterer
17 B 17860, 17 A 00471
Chief Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar
Judge Timothy A. Barnes
In re Anthony M. and Virginia J. Montemurro
February 13, 2018
February 13, 2018
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.