When a receiver is appointed by the court pursuant to this article, he shall have the power to sue for, collect, receive, or take into his possession all the goods, and chattels, rights and credits, monies and effects, lands and tenements, books, records, documents, papers, choses in action, bills, notes and property of every description, including property with which such property has been mingled if it cannot be identified in kind because of such commingling, and to sell, convey, and assign the same and hold and dispose of the proceeds thereof under the direction of the court. Any person who has suffered damages as a result of the use or employment of any unlawful practice, and submits proof to the satisfaction of the court that he has in fact been damaged, may participate with general creditors in the distribution of the assets to the extent he has sustained out-of-pocket losses. The court shall have jurisdiction of all questions arising in such proceedings and may make such orders and enter such judgments therein as may be required.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1973–2004 · leading case:
State v. Hameroff, 884 P.2d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Hameroff, 884 P.2d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “Where it appears that the person violating the act “is about to conceal his assets or his person or leave the state,” subsection (B) additionally authorizes the attorney general to apply to the court ex parte for the appointment of a receiver, whose powers are set forth in…”
Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2004).
“§ 44-1528 and § 44-1529, which provide a mechanism to prevent an entity engaging in consumer fraud from concealing its assets.”
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 511 P.2d 682 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 4× “2 It is our view that the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act is essentially a penal statute except for the provision of A.R.S. § 44-1529. It is true that a violation of a penal statute may have certain legal consequences in civil litigation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.