Holding: Debtors’ Schedules and Plan undervalue their ownership interest in Old Chicago Deli as a going concern and violate § 1325 by failing to adequately account for all disposable income. As a result, the Court will enter a separate Order on this date requiring that Debtors calculate the going-concern value of their 70% interest in Old Chicago Deli and amend their Schedules and Plan to reflect this calculation along with the $20,000- $25,000 in additional annual income earned from Old Chicago Deli.
The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to 2017, listed by year and judge.
Holding: A secured creditor has moved to “designate,” or disqualify, another secured creditor’s acceptance of the plan of reorganization, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1126(e),1 alleging that the acceptance was not in good faith. The Court denies the motion as untimely and moot and because there is no evidence the vote was cast out of malice, for any improper purpose, or for any reason other than enlightened self-interest consistent with both the voter’s and the plan proponent’s capacities in the bankruptcy case.
Holding: It appears that all of the fees generated by FNAC were reasonable, and taken only in efforts to move FNAC's claims forward to obtain payment or to foreclose upon its collateral in the face of a defaulted promissory note. Moreover, all other fees incurred were due to defending against the positions taken by Desert Springs--through two bankruptcies and its (never-pressed) "defenses" to FNAC's adversary proceeding. Desert Springs' arguments against awarding FNAC's fees and costs are not persuasive. Counsel for Desert Springs will be ordered to pay such fees and costs from the sums held in the trust account for said purpose.
Holding: The Debtor's counsel's application and Debtor's special counsel's application for fees comply with the law, both the Code and the Ninth Circuit conventions for evaluating fee applications. Meanwhile, the Objections filed by Debtor's principal failed to explain with specificity why the Court should reach any other conclusion. Accordingly, a separate Order that will be entered on the same day as this Memorandum Decision, granting both applications in full.
Holding: The Court finds and concludes that the Debtor has met the requirements for confirmation under the Bankruptcy Code and that the Plan should be confirmed.
Holding: Therefore, the landlord, R.S. Lots’ § 502(b)(6) damages consist of base rent and additional rent for the greater of one year or 15% of the remaining term of the Lease, calculated from the petition date. Any prepetition rent and damages awarded by this Court or the superior court not already paid are owed in full. R.S. Lots may recover from either Mountainside as lessor or Hatten as guarantor, but may recover only once.
Holding: The Hold Harmless Provision in a state court Decree of Dissolution of Marriage is not a domestic support obligation under the Code. As a result, Peck has not demonstrated that cause exists warranting relief from the automatic stay and the motion is denied.
Holding: This matter comes before the Court on an Interpleader action initiated by Peerless Indenmity Insurance Company and on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Zions First National Bank and Joinder to Zions' Motion by Business Development Finance Corporation/Small Business Administration. The Court finds Granite State Ins. Co. v. Employers Mutual Ins. Co., 125 Ariz. 275, 609 P.2d 90 (App. 1980) is dispositive on the issues before the Court.
Holding: Debtor filed a Chapter 11 Plan which proposed to bifurcate U.S. Bank's proof of claim secured by a lien on real property. U.S. Bank has not shown that it is entitled to relief under Civil Rule 60, and by operation of a separate order, the motion will be denied.
Holding: Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants’ conduct constituted the use of a court process, therefore, they cannot demonstrate that Defendants committed the tort of abuse of process under Arizona law. Even if the Debtors’ conduct was a use of a court process, the evidence does not demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct met Arizona’s requirement that it be solely based on an improper motive. Accordingly, a judgment in favor of the Debtors will be entered this date.