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: ATLU’s security interest in the three vehicles identified in its motion takes priority over Transwest’s garagemen’s liens.

Holding: Proceeds from sale of Debtors' exempt Arizona homestead remain exempt to the extent the proceeds were utilized to find and acquire a new home, to prepare it for occupancy, and to relocate there. However, proceeds that were not utilized by the Debtors within Arizona's 18-month reinvestment, must be turned over to the Trustee.

Holding: Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment on one of their § 523(a)(2)(A) claims for nondischargeability.

Holding: Denying both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s motions for reconsideration.

Holding: Plaintiffs failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are entitled to the relief requested in their Complaint for denial of the Debtors’ discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (4) and (6).

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.