Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lawrence Warfield, Receiver, Plaintiff, vs. Michael Alaniz, et al.,

13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 03-2390-PHX-JAT ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Receiver's Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration. (doc. 510). The Defendants responded and requested that the Court strike the Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration. The Court now rules on the motions. The Court will grant the Motion to Clarify but denies the Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Strike. The Court clarifies the following: (1) (2) (3) (4) The Receiver proved the existence of Ponzi scheme. There was "actual intent," by the transferors Dillie and/or MAF. As a matter of law there was a fraudulent transfer. The Court held that a material question of fact remains as to whether the

transferee Defendants are entitled to the defenses provided by statute, including the good faith defense. (5) The burden is on the Defendants to prove their affirmative defenses.

Document 514

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(6)

The Court will issue an Order Modifying and Amending the language on pages

26 and 27 of this Court's Order dated August 1, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED consistent with the above, the Receiver's Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration is denied in part and granted in part. (doc. 510). DATED this 5th day of September, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT Document 514 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 2