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 Operating Agreement is an executory contract, the purchase option within the Operating Agreement was triggered by an unenforceable ipso facto clause, and a valid trigger of the purchase option would nevertheless require stay relief, which relief is not presently warranted.

Holding: Because the evidence presented at trial did not support any of Plaintiffs’ § 523 claims against Jeffrey Kolb ("innocent spouse"), he is entitled to a complete discharge.

Holding: Order Confirming Joint Plan of Reorganization With Modifications.

Holding: At issue is whether Defendant, acting as the trustee of a securitized mortgage pool has standing to enforce a Note. The court found Defendant is a holder of the Note and entitled to enforce the Note pursuant to the terms of the Pooling and Service Agreement and the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement. However, the Court also finds that neither Defendant nor AHMSI adduced evidence sufficient to establish that AHMSI has standing to file a proof of claim.

Holding: The Debtor contends that Midfirst does not hold a secured claim because Midfirst waived its deed of trust lien when it filed a state court lawsuit to recover on the promissory note secured by the deed of trust rather than foreclosing on the deed of trust. Because Arizona law does not support the Debtor’s position, the Court overrules the objection and allows Midfirst’s secured claim in the amount stated in Claim #2.

Holding: Mr. Campbell and the community property of the Debtors shall be liable to PMM in an amount to be determined later under Section 523(a)(4) as a result of the embezzlement by Mr. Campbell of funds invested by PMM Investments, LLC. The Court denies any relief to the Plaintiff under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Holding: The IRS' motion to vacate the order confirming the Debtor's plan of reorganization is denied.

Holding: The Liquidating Trustee has sued the Fortes for an avoidable preference, and the Fortes have moved to dismiss. The threshold issue here is whether the confirmed plan of reorganization released the preference claim against the Fortes, or whether it adequately preserved that claim for assertion by the Liquidating Trust. Motion to dismiss is granted.

Holding: The issues before the Court all relate to acts by agents of a liquidating trustee implementing a confirmed plan of reorganization. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ adversary complaint for many reasons, three of which are dispositive. First, most of the counts are barred by res judicata. Second, most of the Defendants’ acts complained of are protected by quasi-judicial immunity. Third, those and the remaining claims violate F.R.Civ.P. Rules 8 and 9. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.

Holding: the Court concludes that Mr. Cook has not provided a basis to be compensated as counsel for the Debtors. His applications for attorneys’ fees are denied. Mr. Cook shall turn over the sum of $25,000 in the Manstone Countertops estate, and the sum of $25,000 to the Robinson estate.