A lawyer (snake) has been sentenced to two years in prison for his role in taking a disabled client of money she was entitled to receive from a $500,000 insurance settlement. He should have received ten years! It’s like the fable of old where the Fox watched the hen house. A sorry joke indeed.

Ed Callow, must also pay $167,500 in restitution, representing his client’s share of the portion of the settlement he didn’t tell her about, as well as attorney fees the victim has paid. Now disbarred, Callow pleaded guilty in July to five felony charges in the King County Superior Court case, including theft and money laundering.

His co-defendant, former claims adjuster Fariborz “Romeo” Rahrovi, is accused of aiding the theft and taking $135,000 for himself and faces much the same charges that Callow did. Rahrovi is awaiting trial after pleading not guilty at the beginning of the year. Prosecutors said Callow told his client the settlement had been only $250,000, not $500,000, and paid her only some $165,000 of it, representing about one-third of the total amount.

He was disbarred earlier and has been in jail since March. Be careful who you hire as a lawyer. Check the State bar records. Ask around. At the law firm of William A. Miller in Scottsdale Arizona we have filed suits against dishonest lawyer and a few have been disbarred. Call us at 602-319-6899 for more help with Arizona related legal questions.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Stern v. Marshall (all cites omitted) federal courts have issued differing opinions regarding the range of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to enter final judgments in adversary proceedings. In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, looking at Stern, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a bankruptcy court may not enter a final judgment on a claim to avoid a fraudulent conveyance against a noncreditor to a bankruptcy estate.

The situation in the Executive Benefits decision are common of a fraudulent conveyance claim: An insolvent debtor transfers assets (insurance commissions) to a recently formed company and later files for bankruptcy. In the bankruptcy case, the chapter 7 trustee sued the transferee entity (a noncreditor) for, among other things, federal and state law preference and fraudulent transfer claims in order to recover the insurance commissions. In granting the trustee’s motion for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court found the transfers to be fraudulent and entered a final judgment for $373,000. After the district court, on appeal, affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, the appellant-transferee appealed to the Ninth Circuit, contesting for the first time the bankruptcy court’s authority to enter a final judgment under Stern.

On appeal, after ruling fraudulent conveyance claims do not fall within the public right exception of in Stern and in Granfinciera S.A. v. Nordberg the Ninth Circuit addressed the argument raised by several amici that bankruptcy courts can render final judgments on fraudulent transfer claims arising under the Bankruptcy Code, as distinguished from fraudulent transfers arising under state law. The Ninth Circuit slammed this position, relying upon Sternand Granfinciera, holding that the Stern court’s characterization of the holding in Granfinanciera would render Stern internally contradictory if a blanket “public right” classification applied for any claim based on federal law.

The Ninth Circuit further said that its decision created a gap in the statutory framework governing the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. Specifically, although federal law authorizes bankruptcy judges to “hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11,” the Constitution prohibits bankruptcy judges from entering a final judgment in core proceedings when the primary cause of action is not against a creditor to the estate.

The Ninth Circuit, having found an absence of authority for a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment against a noncreditor on a fraudulent transfer claim, also held that § 157 permits bankruptcy courts to submit reports and recommendations to the district courts in core proceedings. The court acknowledged that this finding created a split with the Sixth Circuit, which previously held, in dicta, that bankruptcy courts cannot propose findings of facts and conclusions of law in core proceedings.

Although the Ninth Circuit found that a bankruptcy court lacked the authority to enter a final judgment in such a case, it nevertheless affirmed the district court’s opinion, holding that the defendant waived its right to an Article III hearing by litigating in the bankruptcy court without having raised any objection to that court’s jurisdiction to hear the fraudulent transfer claim. Interestingly, this holding also contradicts the Sixth Court’s Waldman opinion, in which the Court of Appeals found that a party could not waive its Article III rights.

At the law firm of William A. Miller, we take these fraudulent conveyance claims serious. We helped draft the UFTA legislation in Arizona years ago. If you need more direction in this or any other business dispute, call us at 602.319.6899 or stop by for a visit at 8170 North 86th place, suite 208 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258

Home Builder be Aware! On April 22nd, 2014, HB 2018 was signed into law by Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer. The bill will amend two key anti-deficiency statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-729 and 33-814, the former relating to judicial foreclosures and the latter to non-judicial foreclosures. Borrowers have relied upon both of these statutes in order to…

The Supreme Court made it harder for investors to band together to pursue class action claims that they were misled when they bought or sold securities. But the justices did not accept a broader challenge, one that could have put an end to most class actions for securities fraud. So, as we say, class actions…

If a landlord knew or should have known of activities by the tenant that could cause a danger or nuisance, i.e., damage to neighbors, to surrounding property owners, or even to a passerby, then the landlord can be held liable for tenant bad acts. See Klimkowski v. De La Torre, 175 Ariz. 340 (1993). In the Klimkowski…