Since the statute was amended in 1993, it creates a lien on all non-exempt personal property of either the judgment debtor or a third party as long as the citation to discover assets is properly served on the parties. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2–1402. For a discussion of the case law preceding the statutory amendment in 1993, see Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. v. Mason (In re Makula), 172 F.3d 493 (7th Cir.1999).Vermeer insists that its dismissal was not voluntary and that, in any event, its secured status must be measured as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.

We have noted that, even if there is no clear guidance from a state court, and a case technically meets the standards for certification, certification is neither mandated nor always necessary. See In re Makula, 172 F.3d 493, 496-97 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[T]here are a number of Illinois appellate court decisions on which we can rely to decide this case. The fact that we may need to probe below the surface of some of them in order to tease out a consistent rule is hardly reason enough on its own to burden the Illinois Supreme Court with this issue.").

As such, the court finds that [the judgment debtor] waived this argument and the trustee may not assert it here."), aff'd sub nom. In re Makula, 172 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 1999). II.

State law controls questions regarding property interests in a bankruptcy estate. Id. at 242 (citing Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. v. Mason (In re Makula), 172 F.3d 493, 496 (7th Cir.1999)). For married debtors, Wisconsin law creates a presumption that all property of spouses is marital property, and each spouse has an undivided one-half interest in such property.

A waiver may be explicit or implicit. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. v. Makula, 217 B.R. 550, 555 (N.D.Ill.1997), aff'd, 172 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 1999). In particular, waiver requires that an intention to waive be plainly inferred from the circumstances and that the waiving party make a "clear, unequivocal, and decisive act" indicating such waiver.

A waiver may be explicit or implicit. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. v. Makula, 217 B.R. 550, 555 (N.D. Ill. 1997), aff'd, 172 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 1999). In particular, implied waiver requires that an intention to waive be plainly inferred from the circumstances and that the waiving party make a "clear, unequivocal, and decisive act" indicating such waiver.

"Aggregate interest" is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, but state law generally controls questions about property interests in a bankruptcy estate. See Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. v. Mason (In re Makula), 172 F.3d 493, 496 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 54 (1979)). See In re Bippert, 311 B.R. 456 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2004) (husband could not claim wife's interest in her personal injury claim as it was her separate property under Texas law, and he could not claim as exempt property that was not property of his bankruptcy estate).

For example, in Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. v. Makula, 217 B.R. 550, 553-54 (N.D. Ill. 1997), aff'd sub nom. In re Makula, 172 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 1999), the federal district court affirmed a bankruptcy court's determination that a citation to discover assets was unenforceable, as the enforcement of the judgment in the underlying lawsuit had been stayed at the time the alias citation was served. While we agree with the Makula district court that "a litigant may not begin supplementary proceedings under [section 2-1402] until the time when the judgment is enforceable" (id. at 553), the judgment against Panos Trading was enforceable at the time that the supplementary proceedings were initiated and the UFTA petition was filed.