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: Denying motion to avoid secured lien of Arizona Federal Credit Union.

Holding: Respondents’ defective Notice of Removal deprives them of standing. The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the State Suit and must remand to State Court.

Holding: Order granting motion of Defendants to dismiss count VII, as Trustee failed to state a claim for conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers against Defendants because the Complaint fails to even allege the existence of an agreement between the Debtors and Defendants to commit a fraudulent transfer.

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.

Pages