The Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge those debts arising from willful and malicious injuries caused by the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Because debtors have a habit of filing bankruptcy soon after a judgment for such an injury is entered against them, bankruptcy courts often give a prior (state or federal) judgment issue-preclusive effect when the creditor seeks to have the debt declared non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Liebzeit v. Intercity State Bank (In re Blanchard), 520 B.R. 740 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2014) –

A Chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a mortgage on the debtors’ property using the “strong arm” powers of a hypothetical bona fide purchaser of real estate.  The complication was that the debtors sold the real estate on land contract before they granted the mortgage.

In re Bronk (Cirilli v. Bronk), No. 13-1123 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2015), resolved a couple of “questions of first impression,” slip op.

As we explained in a post yesterday, the Seventh Circuit in In re Bronk (Cirilli v.

Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke has announced that, if she translates last week’s primary victory into a general election victory this fall, she will repeal Act 154, Wisconsin’s new asbestos bankruptcy trust transparency law. Burke supports the proposed Assembly bill to repeal Act 154, which was signed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in March 2014.  More than 100,000 Wisconsin veterans and various lobbyists opposed the enactment of Act 154, and apparently the fight is not yet over.

In 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Mann v. Badger Lines, Inc. (In re Badger Lines, Inc.), 224 Wis. 2d 646, 590 N.W. 2d 270 (1999), in which it addressed a question certified to it by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Does Wisconsin law require that a lien obtained by a judgment creditor who institutes supplementary proceedings under Wisconsin Statutes section 816.04 be perfected, and if so, how is the lien to be perfected?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions in July of 2014 that will make life for judgment creditors much more complicated. On July 15, 2014, the court issued Attorney’s Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. v. Town Bank, 2014 WI 63, ¶ 25, ___ Wis. 2d _____ and Associated Bank N.A. v. Collier, 2014 WI 62, ¶ 23-25, 38, ____Wis. 2d ______. These cases change the way judgment creditors must act to obtain a priority interest in the personal property of a debtor.

On July 15, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court made it much more difficult, costly and cumbersome for a judgment creditor to obtain a priority lien against the personal property of a judgment debtor. Associated Bank, N.A., v. Jack W. Collier, 2014 WI 62. Two members of the court disagreed with the decision and argued that it has changed 150 years of Wisconsin law.

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, applying Wisconsin law, has held that a policyholder's bankruptcy did not relieve an insurer of its obligations to pay for "loss" under a policy endorsement that included a bankruptcy provision.Hollingsworth v. Landing Condos. of Waukesha Ass'n, Inc., 2014 WL 839244 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2014).

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) is the most recent significant amendment to the United States Bankruptcy Code. Many issues have arisen since its enactment. Of particular interest to those practicing in the Chapter 11 arena involves the absolute priority rule in individual Chapter 11 cases. Courts have split over whether an individual Chapter 11 debtor can confirm a plan of reorganization over the objections of unsecured creditors without regard to the absolute priority rule set forth in section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code (Code).