David Donald White, Esq. of The Law Offices of David D. White, P.C. agrees to pay $15,000 of which $2,500 was for "compensation for Plaintiff’s emotional distress”. The Law Offices of David D. White, P.C. (480) 664-4900, 480-664-4900, Ahwatukee, Chandler, Gilbert, Phoenix Arizona

Wayne Niel Richardson vs. Rochelle (Shelly) Richardson (PINAL-AZ DO2006-01401, USBC-AZ 4:08-bk-02995-EWH and USBC-AZ 4:10-ap-00227-EWH), Ronald J. Ellett, James (Ted) E. Turner, Robert R. Berk (Jones Skelton and Hochuli, P.L.C.), Allan D. NewDelman, Matthew A. Ritter, Roberta J. Sunkin

Ronald J. Ellett (Bar No. 012697)

Ellett Law Offices, P.C.

2999 North 44th Street, Suite 330

Phoenix, Arizona  85018

(602) 235-9510

In the United States Bankruptcy Court

For the District of Arizona

Chapter 12

No.  08-02995

Attorney for Debtor

In re:

Rochelle Richardson Debtor.

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIMS

The debtor, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9019, hereby moves this Court for authority to comprise the claims raised in adversary 4-10-AP-00227.  In adversary 4-10-AP-00227 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the automatic stay associated with Plaintiff’s bankruptcy (the “alleged stay violation”) and thereby caused injury and/or damage to Plaintiff.  Defendants deny the allegations.

The terms of the settlement are:

1. Defendant White or his insurance carrier shall issue and deliver to Plaintiff’s counsel a check in the amount of $15,000, within 15 business days of the date upon which the United States Bankruptcy Court approves the settlement.  This payment represents the total funds to be paid by or on behalf of Defendants to Plaintiff in connection with this Agreement or the Lawsuit.  The parties agree that $2,500 of said settlement proceeds constitutes compensation for Plaintiff’s emotional distress. The balance of $12,500 will be turned over to the trustee for the estate.

The approval of a settlement agreement is governed by the standards set forth in In re Woodsen, 839 F.2d 610 (9^th Cir. 1988).  In Woodsen, the court identified the following facts as being necessary to determine whether a settlement is in the estate’s best interests:

(1)   the probability of success in the litigation;

(2)   the difficulties of collection;

(3)   the complexities of the litigation and the expense, inconvenience and delay caused by such litigation; and

(4)   the interest of the creditors with reasonable deference to their reasonable views;

Woodsen, 839 F.2d at 620. 

It is submitted that the settlement meets the Woodsen factors.  The facts and law are disputed by the defendants and the issues are more complicated than typical due to the convoluted nature of the proceedings that occurred in State Court.  The probability of the success is also far less than 100% given the arguments of the defendants. There appears to be no significant difficulty of collection because Defendant White has malpractice insurance. Whether any creditors object can be determined after the this (sic) motion has been noticed.

Given these circumstances, approval of the Motion is in the best interests of the creditors.

WHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully request that the Court enter an order approving the Motion upon utilization of the “negative notice” procedure in which interested parties Can file thier (sic) objections within 20 days plus 3 more days for mailing.

DATED this 19th day of January, 2011.

ELLETT LAW OFFICES, P.C.

Ronald J. Ellett

2999 North 44th Street

Suite 330

Phoenix, Arizona 85018

------------------------------

A copy of the foregoing mailed

this 19^th January 2011 to:

Robert Berk

Jones Skelton and Hochuli

2901 north central Ave, Suite 800

Phoenix az. 85012

-------------------------------

Allan D. NewDelman

Allan D. NewDelman, P.C.

80 East Columbus Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85012

All parties on the Master Mailing List

--------------

David Donald White, Esq.

3040 Chevelon Rd.

Pineland Acres, Lot 149

Overgaard, AZ 85933

Navajo County: 20636149B

05/28/1952

Rochelle Richardson opinion +++++ I never turned him in to the State Bar, but because of him, the bankruptcy I had filed was ignored and the title company put the sale of my ranch through. He was determined to get paid by my estranged husband. Husband and I were to receive $100,000. He got his at that time but my attorney interceded. Very unethical practice by David White.

*************

Authors opinion +++++ This letter was found as an Exhibit in USBC-AZ 4-10-ap-00227 

June 9, 2009

Matthew Ritter

P.O. Box 2943

592 No. Pinal Parkway (HWY 79)

Florence, AZ 85232

Re: Form of Order submitted by David White

Dear Mathew:

I have received the Form of Order lodged by Mr. White. That order would be void as a clear violation of the Bankruptcy Court’s Order and the Automatic Stay. My prior sworn statement is attached and it still applies. The only change is Mr. White now seeks to use the synonym “confirm” instead of the word “ratify”. Since the Bankruptcy Court rejected the earlier attempt to allow the State Court the power to “ratify” the void sale, there is no doubt the Bankruptcy Court will also reject and attempt to have the State Court “confirm” the earlier sale.

The thing that is most troublesome is that Mr. White plainly has a conflict because he received money from the void sale’s escrow which he never returned after the Bankruptcy Court ruled the sale void. Mr. White’s efforts appear to be primary motivated by a desire to retain for himself money to which he simply was not entitled. This is disturbing. Is the State Court aware of this?

Very truly yours,

Ronald J. Ellett

RJE;rre

Enclosed

*********************

Authors opinion - This pleading was found as an Exhibit in USBC-AZ 4-10-ap-00227

Ronald J. Ellett (Bar No. 012697)

Ellett Law Offices, P.C.

2999 North 44th Street, Suite 330

Phoenix, Arizona  85018

(602) 235-9510

Chapter 12

No. 08-02995

Adversary Complaint for Willful stay Violation…

21. “Mr. White was well-aware of the Court’s ruling and the automatic stay, having appeared as a witness before this Court. More ever attached are two objections filed in State Court to Mr. White’s outlandish actions that plainly put Mr. White on notice that his actions violated the automatic stay.”

29. “The actions of Mr. White constitute a contempt of Court and attorney fees and damages are appropriate under 11 U.S.C. 105.”

30. “The actions of Mr. White are malicious stay violation. The fact that he has profited and continues to profit from his unlawful activities is an affront to justice. Punitive damages of not less than $50,000 should be assessed against Mr. White.”

ELLETT LAW OFFICES, P.C.

Ronald J. Ellett, Esq.

2999 North 44th Street

Suite 330

Phoenix, Arizona  85018

*******************

CV2014-095953:

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF NONUNIFORM INTERROGATORIES

(Under oath statements by David Donald White, Esq.)

1.D. Please state and describe the nature of each Claim;

Plaintiff recalls generally the following nature of the two "claims" described the above:

(1)    TISSA GUESS, A client who filed a lawsuit and tried to get a restraining order against David Donald White, Esq.

“(2) Plaintiff has no specific recollection of the allegations of the Complaint other than it involved the contention that Plaintiff inadvertently failed to abide by the terms of a bankruptcy stay.”

1.E. Please state and describe your response and/or defenses to each Claim; and

Plaintiff recalls generally the following information regarding his defense to each of the foregoing court claims:

“(2) Mr. White reported the matter to his professional liability insurance carrier which appointed attorney Robert E. Berk with the firm of Jones, Skelton& Hochuli to represent him. Mr. Berk asserted that Mr. White violation of the bankruptcy stay was inadvertent in that no Notice of Bankruptcy has been filed with the Family Law Court at the time of the violation of the stay and, further, Mr. White’s client also had bankruptcy counsel who was in a position to remedy the problem but did not. The matter proceeded to medication as was settled for a nominal sum. The Settlement Agreement is subject to a confidentiality agreement.”

3.B. Please state and Identify as may be applicable, with respect to each Notification to an Insurance Carrier, the claim number (or any other identifier however designated), the adjuster or insurance company representative assigned to each Notification to an Insurance Carrier;

According to correspondence from Mr. White’s counsel to Insurance Carrier, the claim is designated as follows:

Re: Richardson v. White and Richardson

XL Claim No.       10109856

Insured                 David White

Mr. White counsel corresponded with the following Claims Attorney:

Ted Turner, JD

Claims Attorney

XL Select Professional

14643 Dallas Parkway, Suite 770

Dallas, TX 75254

************************

http://xlcatlin.com/insurance/claims

10109856

James E. Turner [Ted Turner]

ProClaimNewNotices@xlcatlin.com

ted.turner@xlcatlin.com

+2144581252

14643 Dallas Parkway, Apt/Suite: 770 Dallas, Texas 75254 United States

Xl Catlin Select Professional

http://xlcatlin.com/insurance/insurance-coverage/casualty-insurance

************************

3.D. Please state if, in connection with each Notification to an Insurance Carrier, whether the insurance company ultimately paid any money and, if yes, please identify the amount and recipient of such payment.

“The insurance company, after mediation, made a payment to Rochelle Richardson. The amount of the payment is subject to a confidentiality agreement.”

************************

Authors opinion +++++ There was probably no “confidentiality agreement”. The information is easily accessible. +++++

According to Tissa Guess (former client who filed a lawsuit against Mr. White, CC2012-108748, CV2012-054192), Ms. Guess signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) between Mr. White and herself.

Authors opinion +++++ Mr. White statements is CV2014-095953 about Tissa Guess’s lawsuit probably violate their NDA. Lot more to the story of Tissa Guess  vs. David D. White Esq. than what Mr. White disclosed.