As news develops, this section will try to keep the Chapter 13 community in the northern portion of the Eastern District apprised of developments on
bankruptcy practice procedure and legislation over the course of time.

I have three paragraphs for the Trustee news on the web page. Be sure to attach the pdf.

Lou Jones Breakfast
The Lou Jones Breakfast Club will be held Tuesday May 13 at 8:30 a.m. in Milwaukee. Virginia George will speak on conversions from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7. We will have the video feed here at 2950 Universal Court. Oshkosh, Wisconsin. CLE credit will be applied for.

Judge McGarity decided that above median debtors in chapter 13 may not take a deduction for the contractural payment on surrendered property. Click here for the pdf.

The Chapter 13 Trustees for the Eastern District have decided(unless a contrary decision is received from a Court of competent jurisdiction) that the federal stimulus payment does not constitute a tax refund under disposable income calculations. This follows the precedent from the last time there was a stimulus distribution by the government.  (Updated 4/17/08)

New No Look Fee
The judges of the Eastern District have met and decided it is appropriate to raise the "no look" fee for chapter 13 cases from $2,500 to $3,000, effective for cases filed on or after October 1, 2007. We are referring to this as a "no look" fee, meaning it will not be necessary to file a fee application with notice to interested parties, unless fees exceed this amount at any time during the case. However, fees are subject to review if challenged by any party, and there will be no presumption that the fees are reasonable. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016 and 2017. (Updated 10/3/07)

910 Claims
The 7th Circuit in a direct appeal held that a 910 vehicle cannot be surrendered in full satisfaction of the debt. The creditor retains the right to file a deficiency unsecured claim. The opinion is here. (Updated July 11, 2007)

In Re 06-20127 Smith (Bankr. E.D. Wis. May, 2007)
When a creditor files its proof of claim pre-petition and the debtor (a) proposes a plan that specifically articulates how it will treat that creditor's claim, (2) that treatment is different than the treatment in the proof of claim, and (3) the debtor serves the plan on that creditor, the treatment in the confirmed plan controls over the proof of claim if the creditor does not object to its treatment pre-confirmation. Click here to view the decision. (Updated May 31, 2007)

Judicial Conference
The Judicial conference has revised certain dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code effective April 1, 2007. The changes are here.

Electronic Service
Our office has consented to electronic service under Rules 7005(b)(2)(D) and 9014(b). When you file documents with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, our office will normally receive a copy within 2 days. Click Here to see what items we do not need courtesy copies of. (Updated 6/1/06)

A note from the Chief Judge
At a recent staff meeting, the Judges of the Eastern District of Wisconsin discussed Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(f), which states:

When there is a right or requirement to do some act or undertake some proceedings within a prescribed period after service of a notice or other paper and the notice or paper other than process is served by mail or under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) or (D) F. R. Civ. P., three days shall be added to the prescribed period.

The usual practice for a motion for relief from the automatic stay is to provide a notice of motion giving 15 days from the date of the notice within which to file an objection and request for a hearing. Since such a notice of motion requires the responder to do something, that is, to “undertake some proceedings within a prescribed period,” three days are added for mailing. Therefore, if the notice has been served by mail, an affidavit of no objection and proposed order should not be submitted until the 19th day after service. This would allow for the three extra days required under the above rule. The court has frequently received affidavits of no objection and proposed orders on the 16th day which does not provide for the allowed time to object. This makes the affidavit premature as the time has not yet passed.

With respect to orders submitted as a result of a hearing or orders submitted with an affidavit of default of a prior order, copies of the proposed order should be served on the interested parties and proof of that service submitted with the proposed order. The court will usually hold these orders under the five day rule. Also, please attach a copy of the prior order to the affidavit of default. (Updated 3/23/05)
Top of Page