Holding: The location of the Building on the Lot and the Adjacent Lot will undoubtedly continue to bedevil the Debtor and the Plaintiffs, but the Debtor may not use his Chapter 13 case for a second bite at the apple regarding the effect and enforceability of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED
Opinions
The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2014 to current, listed by year and judge.
Holding: In an earlier ruling, the Court found Debtors liable to Plaintiff pursuant to Section 523(a)(4) as a result of the embezzlement by Mr. Campbell of funds invested by PMM Investments, LLC, and directed the Plaintiff to file an accounting of the debt due, taking into account any setoffs or payments already made on the underlying debt. Plaintiff shall have judgment against the Defendants in the principal amount of $737,006.25, with accrued interest and attorneys’ fees thereon, which shall be a nondischargeable debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(4).
Holding: Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of a Commission as a
non-dischargeable debt but not the amount of a Note as Plaintiff failed to meet the necessary burden of proof under § 523(a)(2) or (6).
Holding: Enterprise contends it is entitled to superpriority administrative expense claims because the adequate protection provided to it by the Debtors was insufficient to cover the actual decrease in the value of its collateral. Because Enterprise has not proven that its collateral decreased in value, the Court denies Enterprise’s Superpriority Application.
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).