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: Chapter 11 provides a business debtor with the opportunity to restructure its debt and hopefully maintain employment opportunities for its workers.17 The Code provides powerful tools to assist a debtor’s reorganization efforts, including the right to extend loan terms, change interest rates, and rewrite or eliminate loan covenants. But to successfully exercise those rights, a debtor must assure that the risk of reorganization is borne fairly by all of the parties in the case. Debtor has failed to do so, and therefore, the Plan can not be confirmed.  

Holding: Because the DeRushas are unable to satisfy all three prongs of § 1141(d)(3), their adversary complaint (No. 12-68) must be dismissed. The Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, as a matter of law. A separate order will be entered, granting the Defendant Duncans’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing the complaint. 

Holding: Based on the entire record in this case, the court finds and concludes that Debtors' Second Amended Plan (and its modification) may be confirmed.  

Holding: The Plaintiffs have failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Debtor has committed an act that would support denial of his discharge under sections 727(a)(2)-(4).

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.