Opinions

The Southern District of Illinois offers a database of opinions. These opinions were entered between the period of 2/1987 and the present. To conduct a detailed search, enter a keyword or case number in the search box to the right.

 

Opinions can also be viewed via the U.S. GPO's Federal Digital System

Date Filedsort ascending Summary Case Number PDF
10/30/2020

In re: Clint J and Pamela S Jones

Summary: Debtors are represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtor’s schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging significantly more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that the debtors’ case was not filed until over nine months after first retaining UpRight. Additionally, during the course of their representation by UpRight, the debtors made a payment to an insider for “money owed,” and during the year prior to filing, the debtors’ vehicle was repossessed. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtors and their attorney, which were granted. Although the Examinations had not yet taken place, UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

19-31602 View
10/30/2020

In re: Tiffany L Cannon

Summary: Debtor is represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtor’s schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging significantly more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that the debtor’s case was not filed until 15 months after first retaining UpRight, and although the debtor qualified for a waiver of the filing fee, no waiver was submitted on her behalf by UpRight. Additionally, during the time debtor was making payments to UpRight, a state court judgment was entered against her, and after she had completed her payments to UpRight and was waiting for her bankruptcy to be filed, her vehicle was repossessed. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtor and her attorney, which were granted. Although the Examinations had not yet taken place, UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

19-31596 View
10/30/2020

In re: Harold F and Lisa A Lalumondiere

Summary: Debtors are represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtors’ schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging significantly more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that the debtors’ case was not filed until ten months after they had initially retained UpRight. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtors and their attorney, which were granted. Even though the Examinations had not yet taken place, UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

19-30905 View
10/30/2020

In re: Andrea L and Jason L Lindsey

Summary: Debtors are represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtors’ schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that the case was not filed until five months after the debtors had paid UpRight’s attorney’s fees in full, and although the debtors qualified for a waiver of the filing fee, no waiver was submitted by UpRight on their behalf. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtors and their attorney, which were granted. Subsequently, UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

20-40179 View
10/30/2020

In re: Daryl G Kulik

Summary: Debtor is represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtor’s schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that during the time the debtor was represented by UpRight, his social security benefits were garnished. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtor and his attorney, which were granted. Subsequently, UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

20-40288 View
10/30/2020

In re: Kristyn M Curry

Summary: Debtor is represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtor’s schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging significantly more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that debtor qualified for a waiver of the filing fee, but UpRight did not request a waiver on her behalf. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtor and her attorney. These motions were granted, and the U.S. Trustee conducted the examinations. Neither the debtor nor her attorney knew the basis for the attorney’s fee, so the U.S. Trustee filed a Motion for 2004 Examination of UpRight’s Chief Operating Officer, which was granted. The U.S. Trustee was currently in the process of pursuing the fee information when UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

18-60382 View
10/30/2020

In re: Angie M McClatchery

Summary: Debtor is represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtor’s schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that during the year prior to her bankruptcy filing, the debtor was the subject of several creditor lawsuits, and while she was represented by UpRight, her wages were being garnished by one of the creditors, and another creditor repossessed her vehicle. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtor and her attorney, which were granted. Although the Examinations had not yet taken place, UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

20-30186 View
10/30/2020

In re: Jamie L and Angela Jane Brucker

Summary: Debtors are represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtor’s schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging significantly more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that the debtor’s case was not filed until 15 months after first retaining UpRight. Additionally, during the time they were represented by UpRight, one creditor obtained a judgment in a small claims suit and garnished the wages of one of the debtors, while another creditor repossessed property belonging to the debtors. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtors and their attorney, which were granted. Although the Examinations had not yet taken place, UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

19-31474 View
10/30/2020

In re: Kerri Lynn Sierra Scott

Summary: Debtor is represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtor’s schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging significantly more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that the debtor’s case was not filed until ten months after he had initially retained UpRight. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtor and her attorney, which were granted. Even though the Examinations had not yet taken place, UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

19-30157 View
10/30/2020

In re: Boyce Allen and Amanda Lane Burns

Summary: Debtors are represented by a local attorney of UpRight Law, LLC (“UpRight”). In reviewing the debtors’ schedules, the Court noticed that the local attorney was charging more filing as a partner for UpRight than he typically does when filing under his own practice. Further review showed that the case was not filed until ten months after the debtors had paid UpRight’s attorney’s fees in full. Additionally, a creditor filed a civil suit against the debtors, and a judgment was entered against them months after the debtors had paid UpRight in full. After the judgment was entered, the state court issued a Memorandum of Judgment, and a Citation to Discover Assets was served upon the debtors, resulting in a lien on all of their property. The debtors entered into a payment agreement with the judgment creditor and paid $700.00 to the judgment creditor pursuant to that agreement before their bankruptcy was ultimately filed. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtors and their attorney, which were granted to permit the U.S. Trustee to investigate the matters occurring during UpRight’s legal representation. Subsequently, UpRight filed Motions to Close the case, arguing that the Court was required to close the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350. In denying the Motions to Close, the Court held that not only was it not required to close the case at that time, but the Court has an independent statutory duty to review attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2017. Although administratively the case was capable of being closed, the pending matters before the Court supported its decision to keep the case open.

19-60349 View

Pages