Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Court Cases

Search
  1. In Re Food & Fibre Protection, Ltd. (1994)

    This adversary proceeding involves the application of 11 U.S.C. § 550, regarding recovery by the bankruptcy trustee of payments made to transferees of avoided transactions. The Chapter 7 Trustee, Walter T. Thompson ("Trustee"), alleges that a transfer from the Debtor, Food & Fibre Protection, Ltd. ("Food & Fibre") to Defendant Ivan Jonovich ("Jonovich") is avoidable and that the subsequent transfer made by Jonovich to Defendant J.S. Stephens & Sons ("J.S. Stephens") is recoverable [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. 91-07580-PHX-CGC. Adv. No. 92-761
  2. In Re Chamberlain (2007)

    The issue here is whether § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Bankruptcy Code[1] permits a debtor to claim an ownership expense deduction for a vehicle that is owned free and clear of liens, for purposes of determining "the debtor's projected disposable income" for a Chapter 13 plan. The Court concludes that § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) allows such a deduction in the amount specified by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Local Transportation Expense Standards.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 2:06-bk-01774-RJH
  3. In Re McNabb (2005)

    Debtor has moved for abandonment of his residence from the Chapter 7 estate, asserting that the difference between its appraised value and the secured debt is less than the applicable homestead exemption. Because this case was filed after the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"), however, this raises a number of issues as to which state's exemption statute applies and whether there is an applicable cap or deduction from the exemption [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 2-05-07495-RJH
  4. In Re Irwin (2003)

    The Trustee objects to the Debtors' claim that their motor home is an exempt homestead. Because the Court concludes that a motor home can satisfy the definition and purpose of Arizona's homestead law, the Court denies the objection and upholds the homestead claim.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 02-16004-PHX-RJH
  5. In Re Zieder (2001)

    After confirming a chapter 13 plan that treated Ford Motor Credit Company ("Ford") as a secured creditor, Debtors voluntarily surrendered the vehicle and moved to modify their plan to eliminate the payments on the secured debt. This Court concludes such modification is both appropriate and permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 1329.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 99-02044-PHX-RJH
  6. In Re Weisband (2010)

    The debtor, Barry Weisband ("Debtor"), has challenged the standing of creditor, GMAC Mortgage, LLC ("GMAC"), to seek stay relief on his residence. After reviewing the documents provided by GMAC and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court concludes that GMAC, the alleged servicer of the Debtor's home loan, lacks standing to seek stay relief. The reasons for this conclusion are explained in the balance of this decision.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 4:09-bk-05175-EWH
  7. In Re Guy Apple Masonry Contractor, Inc. (1984)

    Creditor Bricklayers Trust Fund ("Fund") objected that certain itemized services were not performed for the benefit of the estate and the results achieved did not justify the fees requested. 11 U.S.C. § 330(a). The Fund also asserted payment should be deferred until the confirmation of a plan of reorganization as total administrative claims to be paid are, as yet, uncertain. In response, counsel amended the first application to request $27,221.00 in fees and $629.05 in expenses. The second [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. B-82-729-PHX-GBN
  8. In Re Bliemeister (2000)

    This case raises difficult issues of States' sovereign immunity and the date of a "transaction" that gives rise to an excise tax that is nondischargeable if the transaction was within three years of the petition.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. 98-13899-PHX-RJH. Adversary No. 00-00019
  9. In Re Products Intern. Co. (2008)

    This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") filed with the Court on July 11, 2008 by Products International Company (the "Debtor"). A Response to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee ("Cross Motion") was filed on August 12, 2008 by Michael Ferring ("Ferring"), a creditor herein. The Debtor filed a Reply on August 15, 2008.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 08-1454-SSC
  10. In Re Green (1996)

    This adversary proceeding, commenced by the United States Trustee ("UST"), raises a fascinating and important question regarding the extent of services which a nonlawyer may provide in connection with preparing a debtor's bankruptcy documents. Specifically, the UST challenges the propriety of a nonlawyer bankruptcy document preparer delivering to the Bankruptcy Court, on behalf of the debtor, the petition and the debtor's filing fee. The court has considered the arguments of counsel and now [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. 95-00486-PL-JMM. Adv. No. A95-113
  11. In Re Regevig (2008)

    This issue here is whether a State may adopt an exemption statute that becomes available only when the debtor files a bankruptcy case. The Court concludes this is impermissible under the Supremacy Clause.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 2:08-BK-02547-RJH
  12. In Re Cota (2003)

    The Debtors are seeking, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), to discharge the student loan obligations of Jose H. Cota. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the Debtors are entitled to relief.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. 4-00-004064-TUC-EWH, Adversary No. 02-0022
  13. In Re Symes (1994)

    In the above cases, the United States Trustee has challenged fee practices employed by counsel for the consumer debtors. Either Manning and Associates ("Manning") or Hessinger & Associates ("Hessinger"), represented debtors in the Chapter 7 bankruptcies. Counsel argue their post-petition receipt of fees based on pre-petition retainer agreements, including cashing checks obtained pre-petition, does not violate the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Counsel also urge the retainers are not [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. B-94-00271-PHX-GBN, B-94-00940-PHX-GBN, B-94-0999-PHX-GBN, B-94-00708-PHX-GBN, B-94-01327-PHX-GBN, B-94-01216-PHX-GBN and B-94-00259-PHX-GBN
  14. In Re Circle K Corp. (1990)

    John J. Dawson, Streich, Lang, Weeks & Cardon, Phoenix, Ariz., D.J. Baker, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Houston, Tex., Tad R. Smith, Kemp, Smith, Duncan & Hammond, El Paso, Tex., for Jerry C. Bonnett, Bonnett, Fairbourn & Friedman, P.C., Phoenix, Ariz., Joseph H. Weiss, Law Offices of Joseph H. Weiss, New York City, Kevin Yourman, Law Offices of Joseph H. Weiss, Los Angeles, Cal., Jules Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, Stanley D. Bernstein, Kreindler & Kreindler, New York City, [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. B-90-5052-PHX-GBN to B-90-5075-PHX-GBN, Adv. No. 90-415-GBN
  15. In Re Arden Properties, Inc. (2000)

    David E. Ledyard, Faith, Ledyard & Nickel, Avondale, AZ, Janet Briggs, Martin, Bischoff, Templeton, Langslet & Hoffman LLP, Portland, OR, Pamela Kohlman Webster, Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, Los Angeles, CA, David L. Blount, Landye Bennett Blumstein, Portland, OR, Co-Counsel for National Mortgage Co.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 98-12312-PHX-RJH
  16. In Re America West Airlines, Inc. (1994)

    This matter is before the Court pursuant to Debtor's Motion for Approval of the Interim Procedures Agreement and the objection thereto. An evidentiary hearing was required and held on April 12, 1994, after which the matter was taken under advisement. After due consideration of the pleadings, the evidence presented, the argument of counsel, the record herein, and the Securities and Exchange Commission letter dated April 14, 1994, written by Allen Corotto, filed and docketed on April 14, 1994, [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. B-91-07505-PHX-RGM
  17. In Re Crimson Investments, NV (1989)

    This matter comes before the Court on the Application of McDaniel & Jaburg, now the two separate firms of McDaniel & Lee and Jaburg & Wilk (hereinafter "Applicant"), for compensation of legal fees and costs.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. B-88-5647-PHX-SSC
  18. In Re Viscount Air Services, Inc. (1998)

    The court held a 15-day trial in this matter between May 4, 1998 and May 27, 1998. Thereafter, the parties submitted additional evidence on July 27, 1998. Susan G. Boswell, Steven R. Haydon and Nancy J. March represented Randall P. Sanders, Trustee; Timothy H. Barnes represented Turbo Aire Holdings, Inc. and BAE Aviation, Inc., dba Tucson Aerospace; Edward S. Coleman represented Walter and Dennese Cole and Ronald J. Clark; Howard Rubin and Gary S. Kessler represented 9 Lives Holdings, Inc. The [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. B-96-0209 TUC JMM, Adversary No. A 96-0131 JMM
  19. In Re Gabrielson (1998)

    On April 14, 1997, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to Richard S. Berry ("Berry"). The Order to Show Cause focused on technical violations of 11 U.S.C. § 110, as well as whether Berry had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. On April 21, 1997, Berry filed a responsive pleading to the Order to Show Cause; and on April 24, 1997, Russell A. Brown, the Chapter 13 Trustee, also filed a responsive pleading. On July 2, 1997, this Court conducted a hearing on the Order to Show [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. 96-07012-PHX-SSC
  20. In Re Lancy (1997)

    The United States Trustee objects that while debtors are current in pre-confirmation quarterly fees, they are obligated by amended section 1930 of the Judicial Code, to continue making post-confirmation payments until their case is dismissed, converted or closed. 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6), as amended by Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 109(d), 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996).


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Bankruptcy No. B-90-03295-PHX-GBN

1 of 18 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5