Articles Tagged with J. Schmetterer

Published on:

BK Ct. ND IL EDIn re: Richard D. Olson, 16-01356 Chapter 13
Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Div.
Opinion Date: June 22, 2016 Judge Schmetterer

This Memorandum Opinion addresses the feasibility and good faith of a Chapter 13 Plan of Reorganization filed on the even of foreclosure by a homeowner. The Mortgagee bank wanted to shut down the case and the Plan. The Court said “not so fast” and prepared a carefully crafted analysis of each objection filed by the bank.

Facts

Richard Olson filed four Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petitions and Plans in a five year period- the last one on the eve of the foreclosure of his home. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R (“Mortgagee”), assignee of the Debtor’s original mortgage lender Bank of America, objected to confirmation of the latest Plan on the basis that it failed to comply with the confirmation requirements in 11 USC §§1325(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(6) and (a)(7). Specifically, the Mortgagee alleged that there were inaccuracies in the Debtor’s schedules, that the Debtor had failed to correctly value certain obligations while not disclosing others at all, that the Plan was not “feasible,” and that both the case and the Plan had been filed in “bad faith.” In response, the Debtor amended his Bankruptcy Schedules to address some of the inaccuracies.

It is worth noting that the Plan under review in this case proposed curing mortgage defaults per §1322(a)(5) and reinstating monthly mortgage payments to the Mortgagee; as well as committing all the Debtor’s disposable income for the maximum commitment period of 60 months. General Unsecured Creditors are scheduled to receive not less than 2% of the face value of their claims.

The Court entered a Memorandum Opinion on the balance of the Mortgagee’s Objection before ruling on confirmation of the Plan.
Continue reading

Published on:

BK Ct. ND IL EDAmerican Eagle vs. Friedman, 13-AP-01199

Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.  Opinion: December 29, 2015.

JACK B. SCHMETTERER, Bankruptcy Judge.

This case resulted in a Summary Judgment finding despite the assertion by the Debtor-Defendant of his 5th Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination.

Specifically, this Adversary Case arose from the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filed by Arthur Friedman (“Debtor”). Creditor-Plaintiff, American Eagle Bank (the “Plaintiff) filed a 3-count Complaint to determine the dischargeability of debt as follows:

Count I  –  per 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)
Count II –  per 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)
Count III-  per 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(3) and (a)(5)
Count IV- per  11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2), (4),(5) and (7)

Count IV was added in the Amended Complaint. The Debtor answered both the Complaint and the Amended Complaint.

On August 4, 2015 the Plaintiff served Requests for Admission pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P.7036. The Debtor never responded, and the Plaintiff brought a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count IV, alleging that the unanswered Requests were deemed admitted under Fed.R.Civ.P.36(a)(3). The Court agreed, and Summary Judgment was granted on Count IV.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in the Bankruptcy Court per 28 U.S.C. §1334, and this is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. §§157(b)(2)(A), (I), and (O) since it seeks to determine the dischargeability of a debt. Therefore, it “stems from the bankruptcy itself” and may be decided by a Bankruptcy Court (See: Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2618 (2011)).

II. UNCONTESTED FACTS

The Plaintiff filed a Statement of Material Facts as required by Local Rules, but the Debtor failed to file an opposing statement; thus “[a]ll material facts in [Plaintiff’s] statement…[were] deemed admitted.” Accordingly, the following was taken from the Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts, Debtor’s Answers, and the Requests for Admission:

Debtor was a principal and the president of Prestige Leasing (“Prestige”). Before filing, the Debtor was party to a lawsuit that was settled in his favor. As a result, the Debtor received $75,000 annually, minus attorneys’ fees.  Payments were made to Prestige until it was closed in 2011. After that time, payments were made to the Debtor. In his Answers the Debtor admitted as much, and that payments were received within a year of filing bankruptcy.

Moreover since the Debtor did not respond to the Requests for Admission within the 30-day time limit prescribed by the rules, the resulting admission could be deemed a violation of his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Therefore, the Court’s inquiry began with a discussion of the Debtor’s Fifth Amendment rights.

Continue reading

Published on:

Gasunas vs. Yotis, 14-321 (Nov.24) ND IL ED (J. Schmetterer)

The Facts

Yotis, a former Illinois Attorney, borrowed over $50,000 from his Client Gasunas using various tricks and subterfuge: from outright lies to misrepresentations and material omissions of fact designed to manipulate his “friend” and benefactor. Once he had the money, Yotis filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

Published on:

In re Meier (Ch. 11) )(Nov.24) 14-10105 ND IL ED (J.Schmetterer)

The Facts

Bob and Martha Meier divorced and entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) that provided for $4 million in maintenance payable in monthly installments over 10 years; plus a $400,000 property settlement. Bob filed for Chapter 11 sometime later and Martha filed a proof of claim (“PoC”) in the case seeking the rest of her $4 Million as well as the $400K as a “priority as a domestic support obligation” per 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(1)(A).

Published on:

In re 444 North Northwest Hwy, LLC

444 North Northwest Hwy. LLC and Northbrook Bank & Trust were embroiled in a foreclosure action in the Illinois courts when 444 filed for Chapter 11 protection and became the Debtor in Possession.

The parties faced off over numerous issues in Bankruptcy Court; so the Judge consolidated the issues for trial. 3 days before the trial date however, the Debtor in Possession brought a motion to disqualify the lawyers for the bank, Much Shelist, based on “conflicts” arising from contact between a lawyer at Much Shelist and the principal of 444 North, John Heintz.

Of course neither the lawyer that spoke with Heintz, nor Much Shelist itself, had represented the Debtor. In fact, Heinz once stated on the record that he did not recognize that firm name. His memory had apparently failed right up until he swore out the affidavit days before trial.