Richard E. Oney v. Steven Marc Weinberg

Ninth Circuit

Richard E. Oney v. Steven Marc Weinberg

407 F. App'x 176

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 2010

Docket09-60033

StatusUnpublished

Cited by41 cases

This text of 407 F. App'x 176 (Richard E. Oney v. Steven Marc Weinberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard E. Oney v. Steven Marc Weinberg, 407 F. App'x 176 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants Richard Oney and his wife Erin Cox-Oney (“Oneys”) appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court. The Oneys contended the bankruptcy court erred by finding that certain post-insolvency payments did not violate the trust fund doctrine under Arizona law, by allowing Appellants Steven and Dana Weinberg (“Weinbergs”) to retain more than their pro-rata portion of trust assets, and by *178 granting prejudgment interest from the date of the bankruptcy court’s order.

We review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo, and review its findings of fact for clear error. In re Reynoso, 477 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.2007). We review the grant or denial of prejudgment interest under state law for an abuse of discretion. Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court made factual findings that the transfers challenged on appeal constituted reasonable compensation for the Weinbergs’ efforts in winding down Weinberg Cummerford Legal Group, P.C. (“WLG”). Those findings are not clearly erroneous. Further, the Oneys are not entitled to recover more than their pro rata share under Arizona’s trust fund doctrine. Dawson v. Withycombe, 216 Ariz. 84, 163 P.3d 1034, 1057-58 (Ariz.App.2007); A.R. Teeters & Assocs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 172 Ariz. 324, 836 P.2d 1034, 1043 & n. 1 (Ariz.App.1992).

Finally, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest from the date of its August 27, 2008 order because the amount of damages was not liquidated until the bankruptcy court determined the date of WLG’s insolvency and determined the value of the Weinbergs’ work at WLG after WLG became insolvent. Until the bankruptcy court made these factual determinations, the Weinbergs could not have computed the precise amount they owed the Oneys under the trust fund doctrine. Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 185 Ariz. 493, 917 P.2d 222, 237-38 (1996); Pueblo Santa Fe Townhomes Owners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 13, 178 P.3d 485, 496 (Ariz.App.2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants Richard Oney and his wife Erin Cox-Oney (“Oneys”) appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court. The Oneys contended the bankruptcy court erred by finding that certain post-insolvency payments did not violate the trust fund doctrine under Arizona law, by allowing Appellants Steven and Dana Weinberg (“Weinbergs”) to retain more than their pro-rata portion of trust assets, and by *178 granting prejudgment interest from the date of the bankruptcy court’s order.

We review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo, and review its findings of fact for clear error. In re Reynoso, 477 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.2007). We review the grant or denial of prejudgment interest under state law for an abuse of discretion. Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court made factual findings that the transfers challenged on appeal constituted reasonable compensation for the Weinbergs’ efforts in winding down Weinberg Cummerford Legal Group, P.C. (“WLG”). Those findings are not clearly erroneous. Further, the Oneys are not entitled to recover more than their pro rata share under Arizona’s trust fund doctrine. Dawson v. Withycombe, 216 Ariz. 84, 163 P.3d 1034, 1057-58 (Ariz.App.2007); A.R. Teeters & Assocs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 172 Ariz. 324, 836 P.2d 1034, 1043 & n. 1 (Ariz.App.1992).

Finally, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest from the date of its August 27, 2008 order because the amount of damages was not liquidated until the bankruptcy court determined the date of WLG’s insolvency and determined the value of the Weinbergs’ work at WLG after WLG became insolvent. Until the bankruptcy court made these factual determinations, the Weinbergs could not have computed the precise amount they owed the Oneys under the trust fund doctrine. Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 185 Ariz. 493, 917 P.2d 222, 237-38 (1996); Pueblo Santa Fe Townhomes Owners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 13, 178 P.3d 485, 496 (Ariz.App.2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 F. App'x 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-e-oney-v-steven-marc-weinberg-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack