Opinions

Email Updates - Click here to subscribe for automatic notices when this page is updated.

The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2014 to current, listed by year and judge.

Holding: The parties do not dispute that Debtor’s obligation to Plaintiff arose under their divorce decree. Neither do they dispute that the subsequent state court judgment was a result of Debtor’s failure to pay the divorce decree obligation. Debtor makes the legal argument that the divorce decree judgment has merged into the state court civil judgment, losing its characteristic that would make it non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(15). This Court disagrees and concludes that the Debtor's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be denied.

Holding: Judicial liens (as a result of a recorded judgment) only attach to real property. ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-961; 33-964. Recorded judgments have no legal effect on personalty owned by a debtor. Thus, neither of the recorded judgments has created judicial liens against the Debtors' personal property. And, since the Debtors own no real property, the "avoiding" of those judicial liens is unnecessary. Thus, unless the Debtors have legal authority that a lien has been created, by operation of Arizona law, upon their personal property (this court is not aware of any such statute), it would appear that the motions are moot. This court cannot grant the relief sought, because no wrong has been done to the Debtors which needs to be undone. 

Holding: This matter involves a review of attorneys' fees, by two different firms, for work performed in this Chapter 13 case. 

Holding: Based upon the law and the evidence, the court finds and concludes that Plaintiff failed to prove a case of a non-dischargeable act by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendant, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against her. Similarly, as for Ms. Emerick's Proof of Claim, the court finds no reason to find that either Ms. Eckerdt or Ms. Webb owe her any money for breach of contract. 

Holding: On these facts, equitable subrogation is not necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of the contractors and subcontractors. To the contrary, even without equitable subrogation, the contractors will be paid far less than they are justly entitled to receive for their work, and it is entirely just and proper that Mortgages should bear a substantial portion of their loss, for which it is largely responsible in at least an equitable sense. The contractors and subcontractors are therefore entitled to a lien priority dating from October, 2005, and Mortgages Ltd. is entitled only to the priority dating from the recordation of its deed of trust on May 16, 2007. 

Holding: Plaintiff, C&C Equipment, objects to the discharge of Debtor and Defendant Bialowas on the grounds that: (1) the debt to C&C was incurred as a result of Bialowas’s misrepresentations, thus excepting the debt from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A); (2) Bialowas concealed assets, thus preventing him from obtaining a discharge under section 727(a)(2); (3) Bialowas failed to maintain adequate records, thus preventing him from obtaining a discharge under section 727(a)(3); (4) Bialowas made false statements about his assets, thereby preventing him from obtaining a discharge under section 727(a)(4); and (5) that Bialowas did not satisfactorily explain the loss of his assets, thus preventing him from obtaining a discharge under section 727(a)(5). Judgment on all causes of action will be given to the defendant. 

Holding: Dierich’s activities fall short of what they should have been and the Court has found that some of those activities breached his fiduciary duty to RMMC. Indeed, in the many ways, the facts are so egregious that ever recurring questions are -- can’t something be done about this? Isn’t there some remedy for what he did? How can it be right for him to "get a pass?" But the law requires more than bad acts. It insists that those bad acts be the cause of concrete damage to the plaintiff. And, in this case, the proof is just not there on this critical point, except to the extent Dierich was paid during 2009 by RMMC while at the same time acting in his own interests. For these reasons, judgment will be given to the Defendants on all claims other than for salary disgorgement during 2009. 

Holding:  An order will be entered which (1) recognizes the CVH Mexican insolvency proceeding as a “foreign main proceeding,” and the role of Alcazar as its “foreign representative,” to act on behalf of the estate of that insolvent entity; but (2) which allows the Pima County Superior Court to continue to administer and ultimately adjudicate the relative rights of all parties claiming an interest in the fund of money presently held in custodia legis in the pending action. 

Holding:  Court denies Bank United's motion for reconsideration.

Holding: The Court will approve confirmation of the Amended Plan of Reorganization.

Pages