|
Avoid Mistakes When Planning and Filing Virginia Bankruptcy Cases
The best-planned bankruptcy cases go unnoticed. A few debtors glide through the system without attracting attention and receive full discharges in record time. Luck is not involved, but rather each successful debtor begins planning strategically a few weeks or months in advance. These debtors know something that you don’t.
Free - 2010 Bankruptcy Strategies Explained
Ask a Bankruptcy Lawyer for Help – Expand Your Options Quickly
If you are thinking about filing Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you are not alone. Complete the form below to contact a sponsoring bankruptcy lawyer. Ask all questions you deem important without cost or obligation of any kind. Free help is only a few minutes away.
Need a Lawyer?
Ask All Questions - Legal Advice - No Cost
Arizona Bankruptcy Alternative Resources - Loans and Mortgages
The sites below were reviewed for content which is relevant to the Arizona bankruptcy issues appearing within
this site. For more information regarding our
selection of links, please see our review policy. We welcome all sites submitted for review and respond to all requests within 3 business days.
Loan and Mortgage Information and Lenders:
- Mortgages - refresh.
Recent Notable Opinions of the Supreme Court of The United States:
Recent Notable Opinions from Arizona Bankruptcy Courts
In re Deroche, decided January 29, 2001 by the United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, on appeal from
the Arizona Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 99-16058. This case clarifies the "dischargeability" of taxes in Chapter
7. In particular, state taxes and quasi-taxes are included within prohibitions regarding the discharge of taxes
under the Code, based upon the intent and operation of state statutes. FACTS: The Debtor in this case operated a
business as an employer. State law required the debtor to provide worker's compensation coverage for employees.
Because the debtor failed to provide coverage, the State subsequently settled a disputed claim for personal
injuries and paid an employee compensation under the State Workermens Compensation Act. Thereafter, the State
sought reimbursement from the debtor/employer who, in turn, filed for Arizona bankruptcy under Chapter 7. The
debtor requested the Arizona bankruptcy court allow discharge. HELD: The Code provides that "an excise tax
on . . . a transaction occurring during the three years immediately preceding the date of the filing of
the petition" is not dischargeable. 11 USC 523(a)(1)(A). Under Arizona law, an employer who fails to carry
insurance is required reimburse the Special Fund for compensation paid to an uninsured, injured employee (plus
penalties, fees and interest). Because payment to the state is provided by law, rather than by agreement,
subrogation claims owed to the state are subject to the same liability and collection as state excise taxes and
therefore are entitled to the same protection in Arizona bankruptcy courts. Camilli v. Industrial Commission, 94
F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1996).
Archer v. Warner, Docket Number: 01-1418 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, Argued January 13, 2003, Decided March 31, 2003. Leonard and Arlene Warner sold the Warner Manufacturing Company to Elliott and Carol Archer.
Later, the Archers sued the Warners for fraud related to the sale. This suit was settled. According to the settlement
agreement, the Archers released the Warners of all liability except for a $100,000 promissory note. After the suit
was voluntarily dismissed, the Warners defaulted on the first payment due on the note. The Archers then sued the
Warners for collection in state
court, and in turn, the Warners filed Chapter 7. The Archers
objected to the discharge of their note. The Code states a debt shall not be dischargeable "to the
extent it is for money obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud." This motion was
denied and discharge of liability for payment of the note was granted. The District Court and Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: In a 7-2 opinion, the Court concluded "the Archers' settlement agreement and release of liability may have
worked a kind of novation, but that fact does not bar the Archers from showing that the settlement debt arose out
of 'false pretences, a false representation, or actual fraud,' and consequently is nondischargeable." If a release
of liability is obtained by fraud, the release within the agreement is voidable.
The resources we include on link pages pertain in some way to Arizona Bankruptcy cases, whether laws, rules of
evidence, rules of procedure, confirmation, discharge, reorganization, or one of many other topics . Large bodies of law
pertain to Arizona Bankruptcy proceedings must be honored by the courts. As new Arizona Bankruptcy laws are
established each year, the scope of this website will continue to
expand.
|
