Source: http://azb.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions?field_opinion_date_value%5Bvalue%5D&field_judge_nid=All&page=5
Timestamp: 2017-07-24 08:45:24
Document Index: 589262279

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 727', '§ 544', '§ 546', '§ 47', '§ 523', '§ 33']

BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Zubick (4:13-ap-00170-BMW) 06/27/2014 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.
Goernitz, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Kohner et al. (2:13-ap-00199-DPC) 06/24/2014 Holding: Denying the Debtors’ motion to disqualify Kutak as
special counsel to the estate.
Arizona Auto Spa 4, LLC v. Spreiser (4:12-ap-01988-EWH) 06/23/2014 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.
Warfield v. Santander Consumer (2:14-ap-00173-DPC) 06/02/2014 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.
Cline (2:13-bk-19488-DPC) 05/30/2014 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.
Reaves v. Thurston (2:10-ap-02156-EPB) 05/13/2014 Holding: Debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath or account or withheld from an officer of the estate recorded information relating to the Debtor’s property and financial affairs. Therefore, he is not entitled to a discharge.
Gould v. Wisniewski (2:12-ap-01213-EWH) 05/05/2014 Holding: Debtors have satisfied the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A) with respect to the First Advance in the principal amount of $100,000, plus interest, costs and fees calculated pursuant to the Note up to the petition date.
Scannell v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al (2:13-ap-00302-DPC) 01/24/2014 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.
Joseph Otto Letizia and Zhanhong Chen (3:13-bk-09233-RJH) 01/14/2014 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.
Desert Road Builders et al v. Kelland Investments, LLC (0:10-ap-01392-EPB) 09/20/2013 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.