Robert G. Mooreman

How Judge Mooreman rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Mooreman no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona
Position
bankruptcy
Status
No longer serving
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Mooreman decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

The court looked to the substance and practical role of an income source when deciding whether it could support a repayment plan.

“It therefore is the true substance of the source rather than its form that qualifies income as ‘regular income’ under Section 101(24) of the Code.”

Procedural preferences

A request for an injunction or comparable equitable relief had to be brought through an adversary complaint rather than by motion.

“She should have filed an adversary complaint ‘to obtain an injunction or other equitable relief’ as required by Bankruptcy Rule 7001.”

Cautions

A judgment could not reach an unserved spouse's community-property interest without substantial compliance with the service rule.

“service without substantial conformity to Rule 7004 restricts the bankruptcy court’s personal jurisdiction and the bankruptcy’s court order is void to the extent that it effects the rights of the parties not properly served.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

In re Taylor
· 1981-12-02
Request to confirm chapter 13 plan (Lorretta Joyce Taylor) Granted

“the debtor’s plan is confirmed as conforming in all other respects to the requirements set forth in Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.”

In re Kun
· 1981-12-16
Application to extend exclusivity (the debtor) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that the exclusive plan period has expired and that any party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a creditor, a creditors’ committee, an equity security holders’ committee, an equity security holder, or any indenture trustee may file a plan”

In re Ecology Paper Products Co.
· 1982-01-26
Objection to postpetition interest (bankruptcy trustee) Denied

“the court concludes that Maricopa County is entitled to post-petition interest on its personal property tax claims”

In re Smith
· 1982-12-09
Objection to personal property exemptions (the trustee and Valley National Bank) Denied

“the court therefore finds and concludes that this record supports the granting of relief sought by debtors and that they each may individually and severally claim the listed personal property exemptions”

Tektronix Employees Federal Credit Union v. Titel (In re Titel)
· 1984-02-24
Motion for partial summary judgment (Tektronix Employees Federal Credit Union) Denied

“the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment to the effect that the estate’s sole interest in the 1980 Honda Prelude is the right to redeem pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-3152 is hereby denied.”

In re Entz
· 1984-11-16
Motion to restrict and enjoin stock voting (Virginia Entz) Denied

“ORDER DENYING VIRGINIA ENTZ’S MOTION TO RESTRICT AND ENJOIN DEBTOR FROM EXERCISING STOCK VOTING RIGHTS”

American Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Sedona San Carlos Development Co. (In re Sedona San Carlos Development Co.)
· 1986-03-17
Application to sell property (Sedona San Carlos Development Company) Denied

“The debtor’s application to sell the property as a timeshare project is denied.”

Motion for relief from automatic stay (American Savings and Loan Association) Granted

“The movant’s request for relief under Section 362(d) is hereby granted”

In re Cregut
· 1986-09-10
Motion to dismiss case (Deborah Weller) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Motion to Dismiss the Voluntary Petition and dismissing the case.”

Grantham Bros. v. Valley National Bank (In re Grantham Bros.)
· 1986-12-18
Motion for sanctions (the trustee, Edward Quinif, and Valley National Bank) Granted

“sanctions shall be imposed personally upon counsel for the debtor, Mr. William Needier.”

Penick v. Hirsch (In re Hirsch)
· 1988-12-12
Summary judgment (the bankruptcy trustees) Granted

“It is therefore ordered granting the Trustee’s joint motions for summary judgment and denying the debtors’ cross motions for summary judgment.”

Cross motion for summary judgment (the debtors) Denied
Cross motion for summary judgment (Mr. Siegel) Denied

“Mr. Siegel’s cross-motion for summary judgment is hereby ordered denied.”

In re Planvest Equity Income Partners IV
· 1988-11-30
Objection to prepayment penalty (Planvest Equity Income Partners IV) Granted

“Columbia is not entitled to the prepayment penalty in the instant case because such penalty is not a reasonable fee under the circumstances.”

Berryman v. Smith (In re Smith)
· 1988-03-23
Motion for jury trial (the Berrymans) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a jury trial.”

A historical record

Judge Mooreman no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.