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 parties present an issue of first impression, namely, which has priority in Arizona: a restitution lien or a purchase money deed of trust? The Court concludes that a purchase money deed of trust against real property has priority over an earlier recorded restitution lien.

Holding: The issue presented is whether the Debtors may exempt two vehicles, concededly utilized primarily for business purposes in a sole proprietorship, using Arizona’s personal item exemptions provided in A.R.S. § 33-1125(8). The Court holds that debtors in Arizona, doing business as sole proprietors, may not exempt vehicles used primarily for business using Arizona personal item exemptions, and instead must use Arizona’s tools of the trade exemptions.

Holding: The Court finds and concludes that Defendant failed to prove that the transaction was an equitable mortgage, rather than a sale. Therefore, judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

Holding: The issue in this case is whether a loan modification agreement negotiated between the Debtors and Everkrisp Vegetables, Inc. satisfied the Arizona Statute of Frauds or any of its exceptions. The Court concludes that the agreement did satisfy the Arizona Statute of Frauds, and even had it not, exceptions to the Statute of Frauds apply in this case to make the agreement’s terms enforceable.

Holding: Trustee objects, on grounds of bad faith, to the Debtors’ amended claim to exempt prepaid rent in the amount of $900. The Court finds bad faith and sustains the objection.

Holding: Overruling the Objection of the C Squared Parties and approving the Application to employ Arnold & Porter as an Ordinary Course Professional subject to the Application, as amended by the Reply, and as set forth on the record at the August 29, 2013 hearing.

Holding: Until Congress sees fit to define “disbursements” under the quarterly fee statute, and without more definitive case law on this subject, this Court follows the Ninth Circuit’s expansive view of the term, and concludes that payments to equity interests are disbursements to be calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). All payments under the confirmed plan of reorganization, including payments to Class 6 equity holders, are to be included in the calculation of the U.S. Trustee’s quarterly fees.

Holding: The main focus of this case has been Debtor’s effort to restructure debt secured by the Chiquita Center. Pursuant to this decision, Debtor has no tenancy-in-common interest in the Chiquita Center and, therefore, it is not property of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate and the Loan cannot be restructured in Debtor’s Chapter 11.

Holding: So long as there is not a contrary published opinion from the District Court of Arizona, this Court will follow the opinions of the Ninth Circuit BAP, whether or not this Court agrees with the reasoning behind the particular BAP decision. The BAP in the Friedman decision held that the absolute priority rule does not apply in an individual debtor’s Chapter 11 case. The rationale for its 2-1 decision is set out in the extensive opinion penned in Friedman by Bankruptcy Judge Clarkson. Although this Court tends to favor the dissenting decision of Judge Jury in Friedman, for the reasons stated above, this Court feels duty bound to follow the majority’s holding in Friedman. Accordingly, the objection to the Debtor’s chapter 11 plan based on absolute priority grounds is hereby overruled.

Holding: The fees which Debtors seek to collect are related to the substance of a pending Appeal. Because the outcome of the Appeal may alter the Court’s prior ruling, the Court finds that it has been divested of jurisdiction to proceed with implementation of only a portion of the Memorandum. Even if it were possible to partially implement the Memorandum, judicial economy would not be served by having only one part of the Memorandum reduced to judgment. If Debtors succeed on the Appeal, the Court will then have to determine the amount of their actual and punitive damages, as well as their claim for additional attorneys’ fees incurred in the Appeal. Such a piecemeal, time-consuming process is not cost effective for the Court or the parties.