In re Casper (U)

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by asda1da

Court memorandum decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Wisconsin. Mark Westlund initiated an adversary proceeding seeking an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) against debtor Kelly Marie Casper. After a telephonic hearing on her summary judgment motion, the court sets out the standards for summary judgment and applies them to the parties’ real estate flipping transactions. The decision grants the motion and states the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages10

Reading Time25 min

AccessFree to download

Summary Judgment Standards

Material Facts and Genuine Issues

Parties’ Real Estate Transactions

Casper Investments and Kelly’s Buying Program

Plaintiff’s Investment Background

Court’s Findings and Conclusions

United States Bankruptcy Court Western District of Wisconsin Cite as: 440 B. R. 500 Mark Westlund, Plaintiff, v. Kelly Marie Casper, Defendant (In re: Kelly Marie Casper, Debtor) Bankruptcy Case No. 08-16947-7 Adv. Case No. 09-71 United States Bankruptcy Court W. D. Wisconsin, Eau Claire Division November 2, 2010 Gary L. Dreier, First Law Group S.C. , Stevens Point, WI, for plaintiff James A. Higgins, Goyke, Tillisch & Higgins, LLP, Wausau, WI, for defendant Thomas S. Utschig, United States Bankruptcy Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION The plaintiff, Mark Westlund, filed this adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), alleging that his claims against the defendant should be excepted from discharge. On August 16, 2010, the Court conducted a telephonic hearing on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. The following constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052, and for the reasons indicated below the defendant’s motion is granted. Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) . The existence of a minor factual dispute or discrepancy does not render a summary judgment motion deficient; instead, summary judgment is to be denied only if there is a “genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986) . A material fact is one related to a disputed matter that might affect the outcome of the action. Id. When deciding whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, all facts are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of that party. Heft v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278, 282 (7th Cir. 2003); see also Schuster v. Lucent Techs. , Inc. , 327 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2003) . The Court’s role is not to resolve factual issues, but to grant summary judgment if there can be “but one reasonable conclusion.” Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. at 250. The facts are as follows. The parties were, as both appear to concede, real estate speculators. The defendant operated a real estate business called Casper Investments, Inc. , and a real estate investment program called “Kelly’s Buying Program.” She acknowledges in the affidavit filed in support of the summary judgment motion that she had a “substantial amount of experience” handling real estate transactions which involved the short term purchase and resale of various properties (i.e. , what is often called real estate “flipping”) . The emails exchanged by the parties appear illustrative of her business; for example, in one relevant message (dated October 10, 2006), she wrote: I have an opportunity for you! Myself and my associates are purchasing 3 luxury homes in Texas requiring deposits of $5,000 each. We are also purchasing a batch of 6 preconstruction properties that need $2500 each. We would only need the money for about 30- 45 days. And, we would pay back $45,000 in less than 45 days. If it went up to 60 days we would pay back $50,000 .00.1 Meanwhile, the plaintiff had substantial real estate experience of his own. He purchased a number of properties in Florida for investment purposes during the 1980s and 1990s. Between 2003 and 2005, he also purchased pre-construction town homes in Florida. In his deposition, he testified that he wanted to participate in the real estate market because of “the frenzy of real estate activity that was happening.”2 He acknowledges purchasing properties with the intention to “flip”them.3 He also participated in real estate transactions in Michigan and Illinois. Apparently, his Florida real estate speculations were premised upon the expectation that real estate prices would continue to escalate by about 10% to 20% per year.4 The plaintiff indicated he first heard about Ms. Casper [through a Yahoo

FAQs

What is the purpose of the adversary proceeding in this case?

Mark Westlund filed an adversary proceeding seeking to except his claims from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

What legal standard did the court use for summary judgment?

It construed all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drew all reasonable inferences for that party, while not resolving factual issues unless necessary to determine whether only one reasonable conclusion could be reached.

How were the parties’ dealings described?

Both parties were described as real estate speculators. The defendant operated Casper Investments and a program called “Kelly’s Buying Program,” involving short-term purchase and resale commonly referred to as “flipping.”

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by asda1da