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 Filed||Summary||Case Number|
In re: Robert Bruegge v Farmers State Bank of Hoffman
Summary: The Chapter 7 trustee filed a complaint to avoid the mortgage lien of Farmers State Bank of Hoffman pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3). The trustee argued that because the defendant’s mortgage did not state the interest rate or maturity date of the underlying note, it failed to comply with § 11 of the Illinois Conveyances Act (765 ILCS 5/11) and, therefore, did not impart constructive notice to a third party such as the Trustee. In rejecting the trustee’s argument and granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Court held that the (1) the terms of § 11 are permissive rather than mandatory and failure to include the interest rate and maturity date is not necessarily fatal to the mortgage; (2) the defendant’s mortgage incorporated the interest rate and maturity date by reference; and (3) the information contained in the defendant’s mortgage was sufficient to apprise the trustee of the defendant’s interest.
In re: Michelle Nordike
Summary: The Court held that the express language of Rules 6007(a) and (b) and §§ 554(a) and (b) demands that all creditors receive notice of a proposed abandonment, regardless of whether the abandonment is sought by a trustee, a debtor in possession, or a creditor or other party in interest. This requirement was not modified by Local Rule 4001-1 or by the history of practice in this District. In addition, the Court held that the abandonment provisions of the order granting Carrollton’s combined motion were revocable even though orders granting abandonment generally are considered irrevocable. The Court reasoned that the irrevocability of an abandonment order is predicated on the assumption that the abandonment of estate property was properly accomplished in the first instance.
In re: Anthony J. Filarski
Summary: Debtor’s objections to claims were sustained when the creditor failed to file a timely response. Creditor moved for reconsideration of the order sustaining the objections. The motion to reconsider was granted since the creditor moved for reconsideration only one day after the order was entered, neither party would be prejudiced by reconsideration, the creditor’s motion was filed in good faith, and reconsideration did not impede the effective administration of the case
In re: Merna Kuhl
Summary: Chapter 7 trustee filed a motion requiring the debtor to turn over the value of funds in three bank accounts that she jointly owned with non-debtor family members, and that were funded exclusively by the debtor's non-filing spouse. Court found that debtor exercised control over one of the accounts. Trustee's motion granted in part and denied in part.
In re: Yolanda Ross
Summary: Chapter 7 debtor filed an application to waive the filing fee. Trustee objected and argued that when comparing debtor's income to the official poverty guidelines, the Court must consider the debtor's gross income. The Court held that based on the procedures established by the Judicial Conference of the United States, it is the debtor's net income, not gross, that must be considered. The trustee's objection was overruled and the application was granted.
In re: Ronald Earl and Lisa Marie Stephens v Regions Bank
Summary: Chapter 13 debtors sought to avoid the second mortgage on their home on the basis that the first mortgage exceeded the property’s value. Regions Bank, the second mortgage holder, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the first mortgage encumbered only the interest of Ronald Stephens and not that of the joint debtor, Lisa Stephens. The Court held that the mortgage encumbered Lisa’s one-half interest in the property, leaving no equity to support the Bank’s second mortgage. The motion for summary judgment was denied and judgment was entered in favor of the debtors.
In re: Banterra Bank v Gary and Trudy Crocker
Summary: The bankruptcy court issued various rulings relating to confirmation of a chapter 13 plan and a creditor’s failure to object, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) denied creditor’s objection to the first amended plan, (2) approved the second amended plan, and (3) denied creditor’s motion to convert or dismiss. Creditor appealed, raising seven issues. District court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order of confirmation in its entirety.
In re: Peoples Nationals Bank NA v Cort and Lisa Jones, et al
Summary: This is a district court decision reversing and remanding, and holding that Illinois law requires a mortgage to describe the nature of the debt secured, amount secured, due date and interest rate.
In re: Jerome and Barbara Toppmeyer
Summary: Creditors originally received a judgment against the debtors’ son. This judgment was recorded and a lien was placed against the son’s undivided, one-third interest in a piece of property he shared with his parents. The son sought relief pursuant to Chapter 7 and received a discharge discharging his personal liability on the judgment. The in rem lien survived and remained attached to the property when, subsequent to his discharge, the son transferred his interest back to his parents, the instant debtors. When the debtors filed Chapter 13, Creditors sought to enforce their in rem lien rights and argued that the plan should provide for any unsecured deficiency left after the sale of the property. The Court found that the value of the claim was limited to one-third of the value of the debtors’ property minus the outstanding mortgage claim. The Court further found that while the secured portion must be addressed in the debtors’ plan, any unsecured deficiency need not be addressed as it was not owed by the debtors.
In re: Mike and Michele Vallino v Jeffrey and Angela Weeks
Summary: Damages awarded pursuant to a state court trespass action were dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) where plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants intended the resulting injury. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1988), recklessly or negligently inflicted injuries do not fall within the scope of § 523(a)(6). Even the commission of an intentional tort by the defendant is insufficient to declare a debt non-dischargeable absent a showing that the resulting injury was intended.