Keywords/

Topic
Date Title
Descriptio
n
Judge
Collateral
Estoppel,
Discharge,
Res
Judicata
02/18/20
14
Gila
Regional
Medical
Center v
!o"era

#lthough
preclusion
doctrines
did not "ar
plainti$$
$ro%
asserting
clai%s
o"&ecting
to
discharge
$ollo'ing
unsuccess$
ul atte%pt
to dis%iss
de"tors(
case under
) *0*+a,,
$act issues
precluded
su%%ar-
&udg%ent
on
plainti$$(s )
*2*+a,
clai%s #.
/o 110
1112
Doc1et
/o 42
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
Collateral
Estoppel
04/25/20
16
7ro'n v
7ro'n
8n %otion
$or
su%%ar-
&udg%ent,
court could
not
deter%ine
'hether a
de"t
arising
$ro% a
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
&udg%ent
entered in
a state
court
dissolution
o$ %arriage
proceeding
'as a
do%estic
support
o"ligation
under 11
9:C )
526+a,+5,00
'hich is
not
dischargea
"le in a
Chapter 16
case00 or a
de"t o$ the
t-pe
re$erenced
in 11
9:C )
526+a,
+15,00'hich
is
dischargea
"le +2016
;!
56*<541+7
an1r
D/M
:ept 25,
2016=
Case /o
160160
10568=
#dversar-
/o 160
1025J >
Doc1et /o
16,
Collateral
Estoppel
04/24/20
16
Doe et al
v
Martine3
et al
.lainti$$s
'ere
entitled to
su%%ar-
&udg%ent
on )
526+a,+<,
non0
dischargea
"ilit- clai%
"ased on
application
o$ #ri3ona
statute
'hich
provides
that a
de$endant
'ho is
convicted
in a
cri%inal
proceeding
is
precluded
$ro%
den-ing
the
allegations
o$ the
cri%inal
o$$ense in
a
su"se?uen
t civil
proceeding
"rought "-
the victi%,
even i$ the
cri%inal
&udg%ent
resulted
$ro% a plea
o$ no
contest
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
+2016 ;!
1*5518*
+7an1rD/
M 2016,=
Case /o
*0040
15002
J!=#. /o
10010640
Doc1et <<,
Collateral
Estoppel,
Relie$ $ro%
Judg%ent
01/22/20
16
@riet3"er
g v
Mucci
De$endant
sought
relie$ $ro%
&udg%ent
a$ter the
one0-ear
li%itation
period
under Rule
<0+", had
eApired
Bhe
catchall
provision
o$ Rule
<0+",+<,
%a- not "e
used to
see1 relie$
$ro%
&udg%ent
"ased on
alleged
$raudulent
conduct
/or could
de$endant
satis$- the
re?uire%en
ts $or
o"taining
relieve
through an
Cindepende
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
nt actionD
under Rule
<0+",+<,
and <0+d,
+6,
.lainti$$s
could not
rel- on
non0%utual
de$ensive
collateral
estoppel to
"ar de"tor
$ro%
asserting a
clai% $or
"reach o$
settle%ent
agree%ent
488 7R
18<
+7an1r
D/M
2016,=
Case /o
*004011<04
J#=#. /o
0401048 >
Doc1et /o
41
Collateral
Estoppel,
Res
Judicata
11/02/20
12
.ettingill
Enterpris
es, Enc v
7lac1ston
e
E?uip%e
nt
Financing
, !.
.rior
ad&udicatio
n o$ %otion
$or relie$
$ro% sta-
deter%inin
g that a
particular
transaction
constituted
a Ctrue
leaseD and
not a
$inancing
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
arrange%e
nt "et'een
the parties
did not
preclude
de"tor
$ro% later
asserting a
clai% $or
$raudulent
trans$er
2012 ;!
568**00
+7an1rD/
M /ov 2,
2012,=
Case /o
110120
10515 J#=
#. /o 120
121* J
Doc1et
/o 1*
Collateral
Estoppel
10/24/20
12
Cod-
Far%s,
Enc, et al
v
Deer%an

#r"itration
a'ard 'as
entitled to
collateral
estoppel
e$$ect in
su"se?uen
t non0
dischargea
"ilit-
adversar-
proceeding
482 7R
644
+7an1r
D/M
2012,= AP
No. 100
1014 >
Doc1et /o
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
64
Collateral
Estoppel
05/10/20
12
Doe et al
v
Martine3
et al
# plea o$
Gno
contestG in
a cri%inal
proceeding
does not
satis$- the
re?uire%en
t that an
issue "e
Gactuall-
litigatedG in
order to
esta"lish
collateral
estoppel
under /e'
MeAico
la' 2012
;!
1<4142<
+7an1rD/
M J
Jaco"vit3
2012,
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
Collateral
Estoppel
11/04/20
10
7u1e,
!!C a
/e'
MeAico
li%ited
lia"ilit-
co%pan-
v
East"urg

#ddresses
application
o$
collateral
estoppel to
esta"lish
$acts in a
non0
dischargea
"ilit- action
"ased on a
&ur-
verdict HH
7R HH,
2010 ;!
4<26*48
+7an1rD/
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
M 2010,
J
Jaco"vit3,
Collateral
Estoppel
0*/24/20
10
Bhe
2anover
.ac1ard
Group,
!!C v
7lac1'ell

Discusses
the privit-
re?uire%en
t to use
collateral
estoppel to
esta"lish
$acts in a
non0
dischargea
"ilit-
action= no
privit-
$ound
2010 ;!
606*586
+7an1rD/
M 2010,
J
Jaco"vit3,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
DISMISSAL OR CONVERSION:
Keywords/
Topic
Date Title
Descriptio
n
Judge
Dis%issal or
Conversion
04/26/20
16
.ettingill
Enterpris
es, Enc,

Bhe Court
$ound that,
"ased on a
variet- o$
$actors,
conversion
o$ the
&ointl-
ad%inister
ed case
$ro%
Chapter 11
to Chapter
* 'as in
the "est
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
interest o$
creditors
and the
estate
#dv /o
12010515
+71rtc-D/
M,
:epte%"er
26, 2016,
Dis%issal or
Conversion
0</10/20
11
Meunghe
e Joung

Due to "ad
$aith acts,
the Court
denies
de"torIs
%otion to
convert
$ro%
chapter *
to 11 under
11 9:C )
*0<+a,
2o'ever,
"ecause it
is possi"le
$or de"tor
to su"%it
chapter 11
plan that
o$$ers
signi$icantl
- %ore to
creditors
than the-
'ould
receive
under
chapter *,
the denial
is 'ithout
pre&udice
+7an1rD/
M 2011,
J
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
Jaco"vit3,
Dis%issal or
Conversion
04/0</20
10
Carol
Ferri
9nder 11
9:C
)160*+c,,
'hether
dis%issal
or
conversion
o$ de"torIs
chapter 16
case to
chapter *
'as in the
"est
interest o$
creditors
and the
estate
2010 ;!
141814*
+7an1rD/
M 2010,
J
Jaco"vit3,
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
Chapter 11,
Dis%issal or
Conversion
04/15/20
04
Melende3
Concrete
Enc
Dis%issal
or
Conversion
9nder 11
9:C
)1112+", 0
2004 ;!
244*420
+7an1rD/
M 2004,
J
Jaco"vit3,
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
EVIDENCE:
Evidence
12/12/2011
.latinu% 8il .roperties, !!C
Discussion o$ the parol evidence rule 2011 ;! <246162 +7an1rD/M 2011, J Jaco"vit3,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS
Keywords/
Topic
Date Title
Descriptio
n
Judge
Fraudulent
Brans$ers,
.on3i
:che%e
Essues
01/26/20
14
;agner
v
E"erhard

En a case
involving a
.on3i
sche%e,
the Court
$ound thatJ
+1, the
good $aith
de$ense
does not
protect
against the
recover- o$
net
'innings=
+2, $or
$raudulent
trans$er
purposes,
pa-%ents
to an
individual(s
sel$0
directed
ER#
constitute
pa-%ents
to that
individual=
and +6, the
Brustee
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
appropriate
l- applied
the Cnetting
ruleD to
calculate
the
a%ounts
invested
and
received
#dversar-
/o 110
122<
+7an1rD/
M Jan
26, 2014,
Fraudulent
Brans$ers
01/26/20
14
;agner
v
E"erhard
, et al
En a suit
$iled "- the
trustee to
recover
$raudulent
trans$ers
under )
548 and
/e'
MeAico(s
version o$
the
9ni$or%
Fraudulent
Brans$er
#ct, the
Court held
that
trans$ers
%ade to
de$endant(
s ER#
constitute
trans$ers to
the
individual
de$endant,
reasoning
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
that a sel$0
directed
ER# is not
a separate
legal entit-
$ro% its
o'ner and
$unctions
si%ilar to a
sel$0settled
revoca"le
trust
#lternativel
-, the Court
reasoned
that
trans$ers to
an ER# are
recovera"l
e $ro% the
individual
de$endant
as the
person $or
'hose
"ene$it the
trans$ers
'ere
%ade #.
/o 110
122< J
+Doc1et
/o 56,
Fraudulent
Brans$ers,
.on3i
:che%e
Essues
01/22/20
14
;agner
v Fenton
et al
En a case
involving a
.on3i
sche%e,
the
perpetrator
does not
receive
reasona"l-
e?uivalent
value in
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
eAchange
$or the
pa-%ent o$
re$erral
$ees
#dversar-
/o 120
111<
+7an1rD/
M Jan
22, 2014,
#voidance
#ctions,
Fraudulent
Brans$ers,
.on3i
:che%e
Essues
10/25/20
16
;agner
v
Kalencia,
et al
En a case
involving a
.on3i
sche%e,
the Court
concluded
that the
Brustee
had
esta"lished
%ost o$ the
pri%a $acie
ele%ents
o$ her
pre$erence
clai%
More
speci$icall-,
the Court
$ound thatJ
+1,
pa-%ents
to net
losers
'ere %ade
on account
o$ an
antecedent
de"t= and
+2, each
investor
received
%ore than
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
the- 'ould
have in a
Chapter *
case
Misc Case
/o 120
000<
+7an1rD/
M 8ct
25, 2016,
#voidance
#ctions,
Fraudulent
Brans$ers,
.on3i
:che%e
Essues,
:u%%ar-
Judg%ent
10/26/20
16
;agner
v 8liva,
et al,
En a case
involving a
.on3i
sche%e,
the Court
concluded
that the
Brustee
had
esta"lished
%ost o$ the
pri%a $acie
ele%ents
o$ her
$raudulent
trans$er
clai%s
More
speci$icall-,
the Court
$ound thatJ
+1,
Douglas
Kaughan(s
plea
agree%ent
'ould "e
ad%issi"le
at trial= +2,
KCR
operated
as .on3i
sche%e,
%eaning
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
that the
trans$ers
'ere %ade
'ith the
actual
intent to
de$raud
creditors=
+6, KCR
'as
insolvent
during the
relevant
ti%e
periods= +4,
KCR
received
less than
reasona"l-
e?uivalent
value $or
the
pa-%ent o$
net
'innings=
and +5,
KCR had
an interest
in the
trans$erred
$unds
Misc Case
/o 120
000<
+7an1rD/
M 8ct
26, 2016,
Fraudulent
Brans$ers,
Jurisdiction
04/1*/20
16
7loo% v
Federal
Deposit
Ensuranc
e
Corporati
8n FDEC(s
%otion to
dis%iss
trustee(s
$raudulent
trans$er
clai%
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
on "ased on
"an1
holding
co%pan-(s
o"ligations
under
capital
%aintenan
ce
guarant- o$
$ailed
"an1, court
deter%ined
that 1, the
capital
%aintenan
ce
guarant-
'as an
asset o$
the $ailed
"an1 under
FERRE#=
2, there is
no
"an1ruptc-
eAception
to
FERRE#(s
ad%inistrat
ive clai%s
process= 6,
FERRE#(s
&urisdiction
al "ar did
not divest
the
"an1ruptc-
court o$
&urisdiction
over
trustee(s
de$ensive
constructiv
e
$raudulent
trans$er
clai%= and
6, FDEC(s
co%pliance
'ith the
statutor-
re?uire%en
ts did not
conclusivel
- esta"lish
reasona"l-
e?uivalent
value $or
purposes
o$
de$eating
the
trustee(s
clai% 448
7R 622
+7an1rD/
M 2016,=
Case /o
*0110
1141<=
#dversar-
/&uris&uro
1601066 >
Doc1et /o
1*
#voidance
#ctions,
Fraudulent
Brans$ers,
!i%itation o$
#ctions,
.on3i
:che%e
Essues,
Bi%e
08/20/20
16
;agner
v 9lti%a
2o%es,
Enc, et al

En a case
involving a
.on3i
sche%e,
the Court
$ound thatJ
+1, a
"an1ruptc-
trustee
pursuing a
state la'
$raudulent
trans$er
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
clai%
under 11
9:C )
544 %a-
not use the
ten0-ear
loo1 "ac1
period
availa"le to
the ER:
'hen it
see1s to
collect
taAes= +2,
the $our0
-ear loo1
"ac1
period 'as
not tolled
"- the
adverse
do%ination
theor-, the
discover-
rule, or the
doctrine o$
relation
"ac1 #dv
/o 120
1110
+71rtc-D/
M #ugust
20, 2016,
#voidance
#ctions,
Fraudulent
Brans$ers,
!i%itation o$
#ctions,
.on3i
:che%e
Essues,
Bi%e
0*/10/20
16
;agner
v Jones,
et al
En a case
involving a
.on3i
sche%e,
the Court
$ound that
the
Brustee(s
clai%s
against a
late
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
investor(s
children
'ere ti%e0
"arred "-
/e'
MeAico(s
version o$
the
9ni$or%
.ro"ate
Code
#dv /o
1201245
+71rtc-D/
M Jul-
10, 2016,
#voidance
#ctions,
Fraudulent
Brans$ers,
Good Faith,
.on3i
:che%e
Essues
05/24/20
16
;agner
v 9lti%a
2o%es,
Enc
En a case
involving a
.on3i
sche%e,
the Court
$ound thatJ
+1, the
Chapter 11
trustee had
standing to
pursue her
$raudulent
trans$er
clai%s= and
+2, such
clai%s
'ere not
"arred "-
ERE:#(s
anti0
alienation
provision
or
eAclusive
"ene$it
rule Bhe
Court also
esta"lished
Chie$
Judge
Ro"ert 2
Jaco"vit3
the
$ra%e'or1
$or
anal-3ing
the good
$aith
de$ense
under 11
9:C
)548+c,
#dv /o
1201110
+71rtc-D/
M Ma-
24, 2016,
#voidance
#ctions,
Fraudulent
Brans$ers,
.on3i
:che%e
Essues,
:tanding
06/11/20
16
;agner
v ;ilson

En a case involving a .on3i sche%e,
the Court $ound thatJ +1, KCR had an
interest in the allegedl- stolen $unds=
+2, the trustee had standing to pursue
the $raudulent trans$er clai%s= +4, the
trustee(s clai%s 'ere not "arred "-
the doctrine o$ in pari delicto= and +4,
the trustee su$$icientl- stated her
clai%s Bhe Court declined to address
the stoc1"ro1er de$ense under 11
9:C ) 54<+e, or the good $aith
de$ense under 11 9:C ) 548+c, in
the conteAt o$ a %otion to dis%iss
#dv /o 1201142 +71rtc-D/M
March 11, 2016,
#voidance #ctions, Fraudulent Brans$ers, .on3i :che%e Essues
08/02/2012
;agner v .ruett
#ddresses $raudulent trans$ers in a .on3i sche%e case #dversar- /o 11011850&
+7an1rD/M #ugust 2, 2012 J Jaco"vit3,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
GOOD FAITH
Avoidance Actions, Frad!ent Trans"ers, Good Fait#, $on%i Sc#e&e Isses
05/24/2016
;agner v 9lti%a 2o%es, Enc
En a case involving a .on3i sche%e, the Court $ound thatJ +1, the Chapter 11 trustee had
standing to pursue her $raudulent trans$er clai%s= and +2, such clai%s 'ere not "arred "-
ERE:#(s anti0alienation provision or eAclusive "ene$it rule Bhe Court also esta"lished the
$ra%e'or1 $or anal-3ing the good $aith de$ense under 11 9:C )548+c, #dv /o 1201110
+71rtc-D/M Ma- 24, 2016,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
Con$ir%ation, Good Faith
02/11/2016
@enneth D Rodrigue3
De"tor(s pre0petition 'rongdoing during pendenc- o$ prior Chapter 11 "an1ruptc- case 'as
insu$$icient to de%onstrate that the de"tor(s current Chapter 16 case 'as not $iled in good
$aith Con$ir%ation 'ill not "e denied "ased on de"tor(s lac1 o$ good $aith in $iling his petition,
"ut plan as proposed 'as not $iled in good $aith De"tor 'as not entitled to continuation o$
auto%atic sta-, "ut ter%ination o$ sta- under ) 6<2+c,+6,onl- applies to the de"tor and to
propert- o$ the de"tor= propert- o$ the estate re%ains protected 48* 7R 2*5 +7an1r D/M
2016,= Case /o 16012012681 J# > Doc1et /o 100
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
Dis%issal, Good Faith
12/28/2012
Ro"ert 2 Luinn, Jr and :tephanie : Luinn,
# de"tor(s pre0petition and post0petition good $aith is relevant to the deter%ination o$ 'hether
a Chapter * case %a- "e dis%issed $or CcauseD under ) *0*+a, Brustee could not use %otion
to dis%iss under ) *0*+a, as a su"stitute $or $iling a %otion to convert 440 7R <0* +7an1r
D /M 2012,= Case /o *0120100*4 J# > Doc1et /o 116
IN'UNCTIONS:
In(nctions
11/04/2010
7u1e, !!C a /e' MeAico li%ited lia"ilit- co%pan- v East"urg
7an1ruptc- courts have authorit- to en&oin the prosecution o$ state court actions involving
state la' clai%s asserted "- the plainti$$ to "e non0dischargea"le in a pending adversar-
proceeding, "ut the Court declined to issue an in&unction under the circu%stances HH 7R
HH, 2010 ;! 4<26*48 +7an1rD/M 2010 J Jaco"vit3,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
RES 'UDICATA:
Co!!atera! Esto))e!, Disc#ar*e, Res 'dicata
02/18/2014
Gila Regional Medical Center v !o"era
#lthough preclusion doctrines did not "ar plainti$$ $ro% asserting clai%s o"&ecting to discharge
$ollo'ing unsuccess$ul atte%pt to dis%iss de"tors( case under ) *0*+a,, $act issues precluded
su%%ar- &udg%ent on plainti$$(s ) *2*+a, clai%s #. /o 1101112 Doc1et /o 42
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
Collateral Estoppel, Res Judicata
11/02/2012
.ettingill Enterprises, Enc v 7lac1stone E?uip%ent Financing, !.
.rior ad&udication o$ %otion $or relie$ $ro% sta- deter%ining that a particular transaction
constituted a Ctrue leaseD and not a $inancing arrange%ent "et'een the parties did not
preclude de"tor $ro% later asserting a clai% $or $raudulent trans$er 2012 ;! 568**00
+7an1rD/M /ov 2, 2012,= Case /o 11012010515 J#= #. /o 120121* J Doc1et /o 1*
STANDING:
Co&)ro&ise, Sett!e&ent, Standin*
10/15/2016
Ralph !eo 7rutsche
Bo have standing to o"&ect to a proposed settle%ent agree%ent, the de"tor %ust sho' a
reasona"le possi"ilit- o$ surplus a$ter satis$-ing all de"ts :ettle%ent agree%ents %ust "e
$air, reasona"le, and in the "est interests o$ the estate :uch agree%ents need not represent
the "est possi"le outco%e= the Court 'ill generall- approve a co%pro%ise or settle%ent i$ it
$alls 'ithin the range o$ reasona"le outco%es #dv /o 1101662< +71rtc-D/M, 8cto"er 15,
2016,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
#voidance #ctions, Fraudulent Brans$ers, .on3i :che%e Essues, :tanding
06/11/2016
;agner v ;ilson
En a case involving a .on3i sche%e, the Court $ound thatJ +1, KCR had an interest in the
allegedl- stolen $unds= +2, the trustee had standing to pursue the $raudulent trans$er clai%s=
+4, the trustee(s clai%s 'ere not "arred "- the doctrine o$ in pari delicto= and +4, the trustee
su$$icientl- stated her clai%s Bhe Court declined to address the stoc1"ro1er de$ense under
11 9:C ) 54<+e, or the good $aith de$ense under 11 9:C ) 548+c, in the conteAt o$ a
%otion to dis%iss #dv /o 1201142 +71rtc-D/M March 11, 2016,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
Garnish%ent, :tanding, :ta- Kiolation
01/04/2016
Mar?ues v #.D, Enc et al
De"tor lac1s standing to assert a %otion $or turnover under 11 9:C ) 542 "ased on pre0
petition 'age garnish%ent and lac1s standing to assert a clai% $or violation o$ auto%atic sta-
even 'ith respect to garnished $unds retained post0petition 2016 ;! *4<0< +7an1r D/M
Jan 4, 2016,= Case /o *012011**6 J#= #. /o 1201144 > Doc1et /o 46
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
:tanding
04/0</2012
7r-ant v Franchini
E$ the original parties to the case settle all the clai%s "et'een the%, and a part- 'ishing to
intervene 'ants to challenge the settle%ent, the intervenor is then re?uired to esta"lish
independent standing under #rticle EEE o$ the 9nited :tates Constitution 2012 ;! 114<5<5
+7an1rD/M J Jaco"vit3 2012,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
:tanding
06/1</2012
.atel et al v .atel et al
/e' MeAico co%%unit- propert- la' dictates that 'here onl- one spouse is na%ed in a
docu%ent evidencing o'nership o$ co%%unit- personal propert-, onl- that spouse has the
po'er to %anage, control, dispose o$, or encu%"er that propert- Given this rule, 'hen onl-
spouse is listed on !!C %e%"ership docu%ents, the other spouse does not have standing to
assert a derivative action on "ehal$ o$ the !!C 2012 ;! 408464 +7an1rD/M J Jaco"vit3
2012,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
:tanding
04/24/2010
7ucchino v ;ells Fargo 7an1, /#
De"tors 'ho had "een denied access "- a "an1 to $unds in a "an1 account lac1ed standing
to pursue a clai% against the "an1 $or 'ill$ul violation o$ the sta- 'here the de"tors had %ade
a clai% o$ eAe%ption as to the $unds, "ut the eAe%ption had not -et "een allo'ed HH 7R
HH, 2010 ;! 64116<4 +7an1rD/M 2010 J Jaco"vit3,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3
:tanding
12/01/2004
Runnels 7roadcasting :-ste%s, !!C
7- Creditor in Chapter * Case 2004 ;! 4<1144* +7an1rD/M 2004, J Jaco"vit3,
Chie$ Judge Ro"ert 2 Jaco"vit3