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: Megan Nicole Beckemeyer

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 one year after first retaining UpRight. Due to these concerns, the Court conducted a status hearing on the Disclosure of Attorney Compensation where it directed the local attorney to file an itemized fee statement. The fee statement showed significant gaps in the debtor’s representation by UpRight. 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. At the hearing on the Motions to Close, the Court denied the Motions based on the U.S. Trustee’s request to take 2004 Examinations of the debtor and her attorney, along with the Court’s concerns regarding the fee statement provided by UpRight. In the Court’s written Opinion 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.

19-31273 View
10/30/2020

In re: Jeffrey S and Julie Bayles Thulin

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 one year after they had initially retained UpRight. Additionally, during the time that they were represented by UpRight, the debtors were subjected to a post-judgment collection proceeding in state court and had wages garnished. These concerns led the U.S. Trustee to file Motions for 2004 Examinations of the debtor 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.

20-30103 View
10/30/2020

In re: Wendell B Haws

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 the case was not filed until nearly one year after he had first retained UpRight, and a foreclosure action was filed against the debtor possibly during the time he was represented by UpRight. 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.

19-60222 View
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: 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: 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: 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

Pages