Recent Court Cases for Arizona Debt Collection Cases

1. Nunez v. Interstate Corporate Systems, Inc.

2. Bils v. Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, et al.

3. Christopher M. Terran, v. Jerold Kaplan Inc.

Both parties in this Arizona collections case appealed from the U.S. District Court's (Arizona) decision. Ultimately, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that (1) the District Court was incorrect in finding that the collection attorney, Jerold Kaplan, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act with the language of his dunning letter, and (2) that the issue of attorney's fees must be remanded to the District Court for a determination of whether Mr. Terran, his attorney or both should pay the attorney's fees and costs award.

4.  Cynthia L. Cohen, Modern Financial Plans& Services, Inc. v. Robert P. Abele

(PLEASE NOTE: THIS, THE FIRST COHEN CASE, MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SECOND COHEN CASE, ALSO PRINTED BELOW, BECAUSE THE SECOND CASE COMES TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION)

This bankruptcy case, the first of the Cynthia Cohen cases, revolved around a husband paying a creditor to settle existing legal disputes. The husband paid a sum to settle the legal issues with proceeds provided him by his wife prior to the wife filing her bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy trustee moved to have the transfer from debtor/wife to husband declared fraudulent. The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an avoidable transfer did not happen in this case when the ultimate recipient of a settlement check could not reasonably be expected to know the source of funds since the funds appeared to come from the husband. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals distinguishes this case from the Video Depot case (In re Video Depot, Ltd., 127 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997)) since the facts in that case made it much more obvious from where the payment originated.

5. Cynthia Cohen, Robert P. Abele, v. Modern Financial Plans Services, Inc

This, the second of the Cohen cases, reverses the first. Here, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, determined that since the husband was never an actual holder of the check paying off the creditor and that since the check was never negotiated to the husband, the husband was in fact, only a courier of the check to the creditor. The debtor/wife had purchased the check and only placed the husband's name on the check as the "purchaser." Thus, the 9th Circuit determined that the creditor was the initial transferee and was ordered to pay back the full amount received.

6.  Michael Collins, Chrysler First Credit Corporation, v. First Financial Services, Inc.

This Division One Arizona Court of Appeals case addresses the issue of attorney fees pursuant to a conversion action. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that attorney fees were appropriate under the "tort of another" exception to the general rule against awarding attorney fees in the absence of a statute or agreement of the parties providing for such an attorney fee award. Thus, in this conversion case, the court considered it appropriate to include attorney fees as part of the damage award.

7.  Financial Management Services, Inc., v. Familian Corporation, and John Doe

A convoluted Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, case involving security interests in construction materials, financing companies and a variety of legal issues revolving around those topics.

8.  Prism Properties, Inc., Debtor. Chapter 11 Proceedings

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona addressed whether an Arizona corporation for whom the Arizona Corporation Commission revoked its corporate charter is an eligible debtor under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Arizona Court held that a revoked Arizona corporation may be an eligible debtor but is limited to liquidation.

9.  Barbara A. Radi, v. Bennett Law Offices, Michael B. Bennett

In this very brief 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, the court reaffirms that the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) does apply to dishonored check cases and remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court of Arizona for consideration of the Motion to Dismiss.