(7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2016)

(7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit reverses the district court and holds that certain funds held by the debtor were held in trust for the appellant and other creditors in the same customer class. The funds therefore were not property of the estate that should be distributed pro rata to all creditors. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Appellant: Foley & Lardner LLP, Stephen Bedell, Robert Seth Bressler, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff, Thomas P. Krebs, William J. McKenna, Jr.

(7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2016)

(7th Cir. July 18, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ $30,000 exemption in trust assets. The debtors argued the spendthrift provisions in the trust prevented the interest from becoming property of the estate. The court holds that the trust interest fully vested before the debtors filed bankruptcy. An exemption was inappropriate and the interest was property of the estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorney for Debtors: Julia D. Mannix

Attorney for Trustee: Zane Zielinski

(7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2016)

(7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the appeal. The debtor failed to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order within the 14-day period set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1). The court discusses authority holding that courts do not have equitable powers to contradict bankruptcy statutes and rules. Opinion below.

Judge: Easterbrook

Attorney for Debtor: Randy Joseph Netzer

Attorney for Appellee: Sean Michael Murphy

(7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)

(7th Cir. Jan. 30, 2017)

(7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court. The debtor claimed an exemption for a rare first edition Book of Mormon under Illinois’s exemption statutes, which permit an exemption for “a bible.” The trustee argued that the debtor should be permitted only to exempt one of the debtor’s other copies, because the rare copy was worth approximately $10,000 and, the trustee argued, the statute was being misused in this case. The court holds that the plain wording of the statute permitted the claimed exemption. Opinion below.

(7th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016)