Felipe N. Gomez v. LARRY WEISENTHAL and CONSTANCE WEISENTHAL

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 17, 2026*
Decided February 17, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1541
FELIPE N. GOMEZ,
Debtor-Appellant,
v.
LARRY WEISENTHAL and
CONSTANCE WEISENTHAL,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 23-cv-15662
Jeremy C. Daniel.
Judge.
O R D E R
Felipe Gomez appeals the bankruptcy court’s order approving the settlement
agreement entered on behalf of his estate and executed by the estate’s trustee in an
adversary proceeding during Gomez’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. He argues
that the bankruptcy court should have allowed him to dismiss the adversary complaint.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record
adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the
court. FED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 25-1541 Page 2
But the bankruptcy court explained that Gomez lacked standing to do so, and the
district court agreed. We affirm.
Background
1. Gomez’s Bankruptcy Filing and Amendment of Schedules
Gomez, an attorney suspended from the practice of law with a history of filing
frivolous litigation, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in early 2023 after incurring
substantial sanctions and adverse judgments. With his petition, Gomez filed his
schedules. On Schedule C, he claimed Illinois’s wildcard exemption, which allows a
debtor to exempt up to $4,000 in value of personal property of his choice. See 735 ILCS
5/12-1001(b).
Throughout the summer of 2023, Gomez frequently amended his Schedule C.
Gomez filed his final amendment to Schedule C on July 28. As relevant here, the final
amendment excluded from his wildcard exemption a $12,000 settlement the estate had
reached with one defendant, Denise Mastro, in a suit Gomez had filed against the
Village of Forest Park, Illinois, and others. (As part of those settlement negotiations, the
Village of Forest Park also agreed to pay the estate $8,000.)
2. Gomez’s Adversary Proceeding Against the Weisenthals
On May 1, 2023, while his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case was pending, Gomez filed
an adversary complaint against Larry and Constance Weisenthal in the bankruptcy
court. He alleged that before he filed his bankruptcy petition, the Weisenthals
unlawfully converted his personal property and owed it to the estate. See 11 U.S.C.
§ 542. In July, the bankruptcy court stayed the adversary proceeding while the
Weisenthals began settlement negotiations with the trustee. On October 6, Gomez filed
a notice of dismissal of the adversary complaint. The Weisenthals objected, arguing that
Gomez lacked standing to dismiss the action because, once filed, the adversary
proceeding became property of the bankruptcy estate and was subject to the trustee’s
exclusive control. The bankruptcy court did not act on Gomez’s request.
One week later, on October 13, the trustee moved the bankruptcy court to
approve a settlement with the Weisenthals, resolving the adversary proceeding. Under
the settlement, the Weisenthals would be released from liability in exchange for a $3,750
payment to the estate. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement on October 30,
2023.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 25-1541 Page 3
Gomez sought to appeal the approval of the settlement. The bankruptcy court
explained that it approved the settlement notwithstanding Gomez’s notice of dismissal
of the adversary complaint because Gomez lacked standing to object, as there was no
possibility that any estate assets would revert to him. The court noted that creditors had
filed claims totaling $272,346, while Gomez’s assets were far less.
Gomez appealed to the district court, arguing that the bankruptcy court should
have dismissed the adversary complaint before approving the settlement. But the
district court agreed with the bankruptcy court that Gomez lacked standing to dismiss
the adversary complaint and challenge the approval of the settlement. The district court
also considered and rejected Gomez’s argument that he had standing because he
retained an interest in satisfying his unfulfilled wildcard exemption. The court
explained that the trustee had collected assets from the settlement of the lawsuit against
the Village of Forest Park sufficient to satisfy Gomez’s wildcard exemption. Once the
exemption was fully satisfied and there was no realistic prospect of a surplus, the court
explained, Gomez no longer had a personal stake in the outcome of the adversary
proceeding and therefore lacked standing to control its resolution.
Analysis
On appeal, Gomez continues to argue that the bankruptcy court should have
allowed him to dismiss the adversary complaint and should not have approved the
settlement. We review de novo the question of standing. In re Helmstetter, 44 F.4th 676,
679 (7th Cir. 2022).
As a Chapter 7 debtor, Gomez is entitled to a distribution from his estate only
after the trustee has paid all creditors in full. See 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(6). A debtor often
lacks standing to object to a bankruptcy court’s order “‘because no matter how the
estate’s assets are disbursed by the trustee, no assets will revert to the debtor[,]’ and
therefore, it is unlikely that a favorable decision from this court would redress the
debtor’s injury.” In re Helmstetter, 44 F.4th at 679 (alteration in original) (quoting In re
GT Automation Grp., Inc., 828 F.3d 602, 604 (7th Cir. 2016)). In other words, “if the debtor
can show a reasonable possibility of a surplus after satisfying all debts, then the debtor
has shown a pecuniary interest and has standing to object to a bankruptcy order.” In re
Cult Awareness Network, Inc., 151 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1998).
We agree with both the bankruptcy court and district court that Gomez lacked
standing to dismiss the adversary complaint and challenge the approval of the
settlement where he could not reasonably expect any surplus after his creditors were

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 25-1541 Page 4
paid. While creditors filed claims totaling $272,346, Gomez reported assets of only
$5,303 in personal property and $20,000 from the settlements in the lawsuit against the
Village of Forest Park. With liabilities vastly exceeding assets, the estate had no realistic
prospect of generating a surplus for distribution to Gomez. Any recovery from the
settlement would benefit the estate, not Gomez. Accordingly, a favorable decision for
Gomez would not redress any injury from the approval of the settlement. Gomez
therefore lacked standing to prevent the settlement’s approval.
Gomez’s counterargument also fails. He contends that the courts overlooked his
wildcard exemption under 735 ILCS 5/12-1001(b). Gomez says that he expressly
excluded from the wildcard exemption the $12,000 settlement the estate received from
Mastro. And, in his view, his remaining assets totaling $5,303 did not count toward the
exemption because they were not listed as exempt property on his Schedule C.
Accordingly, Gomez reasons, the $4,000 exemption remained unsatisfied, so he
necessarily had an interest in the $3,750 settlement with the Weisenthals.
But Gomez’s attempt to manufacture standing fails. Our case law is clear: In the
bankruptcy context, a petitioner has standing to challenge a bankruptcy court’s order
only where there is a reasonable expectation that surplus funds will remain and revert
to the debtor after all creditors are paid. In re Helmstetter, 44 F.4th at 679–80. Gomez has
not made that showing. Moreover, Gomez has not cited any authority holding that a
debtor has standing based on an unexercised or unfulfilled exemption or permitting a
debtor to object to a settlement based on such an exemption. And, in any event, Gomez
does not explain how the $8,000 settlement the estate reached with the Village of Forest
Park, which he did not exclude, would not satisfy the wildcard exemption.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --