Illinois Bankruptcy Lawyer Blog

IBLB Exclusive!

Wheaton lawyer David J. Boersma recently took on the great and powerful Glenn Steans, Lisle Chapter 13 Trustee and ... won? At least that's how it looks. I just got off the phone with David and he was characteristically humble. The issue before Judge Squires in the matter of In re Anderson was this: Is social security part of the Debtor's "income" for purposes of a Chapter 13 Plan? Judge Squires answered "No" in this case. Boo-ya. At the moment I'm still combing through David's 2 massive briefs. He says he poured over 1,000 pages to win this argument and I believe him. Contact David at attorneyboersma@sbcglobal.net to congratulate him, then jump on Pacer and check out his briefs ... so to speak Anyway, congratulations David.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari with respect to U.S. v. Apex Oil Co., 579 F.3d 734 (C.A.7-Ill. 2009) in which the 7th Circuit held that an government injunction requiring Apex to clean up a contaminated site constituted a non-dischargeable debt as set out in the Bankruptcy Code.

By contrast, Apex argued that an injunction is not a "claim" under sec. 101(5)(B) because it is not a right to money damages arising from a breach of performance. Instead, claimed Apex, the injunctive claim was a demand on the Debtor barred by sec. 362, the Automatic Stay. In the alternative, said Apex,the claim was reducible to money damages and was therefore dischargeable. Finally, Apex argued that to consider an environmental clean-up order a nondischargeable claim would conflict with a line of Supreme Court cases starting with Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U.S. 274, 105 S.Ct. 705, 83 L.Ed.2d 649 (1985).

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the matter and the holding of the 7th Cir. Stands.

Bankruptcy: In re Stuart M. Hanson, 09-04820

Adversary: 6050 Grant LLC v. Hanson, 09-00447

Opinion issued Oct. 5, 2010 by the Honorable John H. Squires

Upshot: After a hearing the Court determined that $93,461.29 owed by the Debtor to 6050 Grant was non-dischargeable under §523(a)(2)(A). Two weeks after entry of the Opinion, Debtor filed a motion to alter it. According to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, incorporated here by Bankruptcy Rule 9023, a judgment may be amended based on one or more of the following: the Court's manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or a change in controlling law. Under the circumstances, the Court found none of these conditions, so the judgment stands.

Click here to view and download the Opinion in .pdf format.