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: Although Debtors initially failed to disclose various assets and sources of income in their schedules, these omissions were not the product of Debtors’ intent to delay, hinder or defraud their creditors. Additionally, Debtors did not knowingly and fraudulently make false oaths by signing and filing their schedules, which contained omissions and inaccuracies. Accordingly, the relief requested by BMO Harris Bank in its Complaint to deny Debtors’ discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2), (3), (4) and (5) and 523(a)(2) and (6) is denied.

Holding: Denying the Debtors’ motion to disqualify Kutak as
special counsel to the estate.

Holding: Debtor and his marital community cannot discharge the following obligations: $20,000 due to Ross, $20,000 due to Sheftel and $25,000 due to AAS4.

Holding: Defendant’s date of perfection of a lien relates back to December 14, 2013. Therefore, Plaintiff/Trustee’s rights and powers under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a), which arose on the Petition Date of December 18, 2013, are inferior to Defendant’s lien rights. See § 546(b) and A.R.S. § 47-9322(A)(1). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Holding: Missouri’s exemptions are not restricted to residents of Missouri so long as Debtors are domiciled in Missouri for purposes of Section 522(b)(3)(A). Because Missouri has opted-out of the federal exemption scheme, Debtors must use the exemptions provided under Missouri law.

Holding: Debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath or account or withheld from an officer of the estate recorded information relating to the Debtor’s property and financial affairs. Therefore, he is not entitled to a discharge.

Holding: Debtors have satisfied the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A) with respect to the First Advance in the principal amount of $100,000, plus interest, costs and fees calculated pursuant to the Note up to the petition date.

Holding: The parties present an issue of first impression, namely, which has priority in Arizona: a restitution lien or a purchase money deed of trust? The Court concludes that a purchase money deed of trust against real property has priority over an earlier recorded restitution lien.

Holding: The issue presented is whether the Debtors may exempt two vehicles, concededly utilized primarily for business purposes in a sole proprietorship, using Arizona’s personal item exemptions provided in A.R.S. § 33-1125(8). The Court holds that debtors in Arizona, doing business as sole proprietors, may not exempt vehicles used primarily for business using Arizona personal item exemptions, and instead must use Arizona’s tools of the trade exemptions.

Holding: The Court finds and concludes that Defendant failed to prove that the transaction was an equitable mortgage, rather than a sale. Therefore, judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

Pages