NHBC Emblem

United States Bankruptcy Court
District of New Hampshire
Judge J. Michael Deasy 2001 Opinions

12-27-01         Michels v. Sheridan, 2001 BNH051 (overruling defendant’s objections and awarding attorney’s fees for work done as court appointed special counsel).

12-21-01         CGE Shattuck LLC v. Town of Jaffrey, New Hampshire (In re CGE Shattuck LLC), 272 B.R. 514 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (discussing the difference between 11 U.S.C. § 108(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) and denying defendant's motion for summary judgement with regards to a tax refund under 11 U.S.C. § 505 because under section 108(a) the appeal period under state law had not expired and the debtor had properly preserved its rights to a tax refund under state law).

 12-17-01        Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Weeks (In re Weeks), 2001 BNH 049 (denying movant's motion for relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362 but ordering the debtors to make adequate protection payments consisting of the court determined arrearage and regular monthly mortgage payments).

12-10-01         In re Marsico, 2001 BNH 047 (denying the homestead exemption claimed by the debtor and his non-debtor spouse under RSA 480:1 because neither the debtor nor his non-debtor spouse were domiciled in New Hampshire as required by 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)).

10-12-01         Michels v. Sheridan, 2001 BNH 043 (finding that Attorney Sheridan violated the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct and suspending Attorney Sheridan from practicing before the Court for a period of one year).

09-06-01         In re Amadon, 2001 BNH 040 (finding that the proposed monthly plan payments and a balloon payment were feasible under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6) and finding that the interest rate on a secured creditor's claim complied with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii)).

09-04-01         In re Husemann, 2001 BNH 039 (overruling the Chapter 13 trustee's objection to confirmation based on 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1) because there was no unfair discrimination by the debtor in proposing to pay a co-signed consumer obligation in full under his plan; denying confirmation of the debtor's plan for failure to use all of his disposable income within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2) as the debtor's 401(k) contribution was not a reasonably necessary living expense under the particular facts of the case while his monthly payments for a 401(k) loan, life insurance, and support of his estranged wife were).

08-15-01         Granite Bank v. Cohen (In re Cohen), 267 B.R. 39 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (holding that under state law the debtor's real property, on which the debtor's principal residence was located and consisting of 59.7 acres of land divided by a road, was one parcel of land, and, as a result, finding that (1) the mortgagee's claim could not be modified pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(5); and (2) the mortgagee's motion for relief should be granted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) as the debtor's real property was not necessary to an effective reorganization under Chapter 11).

07-24-01         Stephenson v. Schreiber (In re Emerson), 2001 BNH 036 (granting summary judgment in favor of the Chapter 7 trustee without deciding if the good faith transferee defense under RSA 545-A:8(IV) may be raised by an insider against a Chapter 7 trustee's fraudulent transfer claim under RSA 545-A:5(II) because it is not a defense to a preferential transfer claim under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), pursuant to which the Chapter 7 trustee had already received a judgment avoiding the transfer of the debtors' airplane).

07-19-01         In re Croteau, 2001 BNH 035 (holding that post-petition appreciation in the value of property accrues for the benefit of the trustee and the bankruptcy estate in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(6) and not for benefit of the debtor).

07-18-01         United Companies Lending Corp. v. Skwozinski (In re Skwozinski), 2001 BNH 034 (holding that the Debtor and Co-Debtors had properly rescinded on a residential mortgage under the Truth and Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635, and had properly rescinded on a commercial property under the doctrine of collateral estoppel).

 07-12-01        In re Schultz, 2001 BNH 033 (holding that the mortgagee's secured claim is protected by 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) and cannot be modified as proposed in the debtors' Chapter 13 plan where the debtors were living on the mortgaged real estate in a mobile home but were not living in the manufactured home, whose purchase the mortgagee financed, at the time the debtors filed their bankruptcy petition).

06-01-01         Balzotti v. RAD Invs., LLC (In re Shepherds Hill Dev. Co., LLC), 263 B.R. 673 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (denying the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), on the grounds that the Debtor was not a third-party beneficiary to a contract between non-debtor parties and finding that even if the Debtor was a third-party beneficiary to the contract, the Court would still not have jurisdiction over the matter).

06-04-01       In re Ferman, 2001 BNH 028 (determining value of debtor's seasonal lake front real estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) in the context of cramming down a secured creditor's claim in Chapter 13 under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322(b)(2) and 1325(a)(5)).

5-15-01          Balzotti v. RAD Invs., LLC (In re Shepherds Hill Dev. Co., LLC), 263 B.R. 673 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (vacating the entry of default and dismissing an adversary proceeding over the alleged breach of a post-petition contract between non-debtor parties where the proceeds of the adversary proceeding had been assigned to the Chapter 11 trustee and were used to partially fund a confirmed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization because the Court did not have “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 157).

04-30-01         MacMillan v. Toy (In re Toy), 2001 BNH 024 (denying a complaint objecting to discharge pursuant to section 523(a)(2) on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof with regards to fraudulent intent).

04-26-01         In re Blais, 2001 BNH 021 (partially denying the debtors motion to reopen their case and vacate the discharge to permit the filing of a reaffirmation agreement on the grounds that the reaffirmation agreement was enforceable as filed under section 524(c) even though the agreement was not filed until after the debtors received their discharge, because all parties had signed the reaffirmation agreement prior to the debtors receiving their discharge).

04-26-01         Marshall v. Kalantzis (In re Kalantzis), 2001 BNH 020 (denying the debtor’s motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), as made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023, on the grounds that the pleadings had been amended pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7015(b) and on the grounds that the Court had not made an error of fact in denying the debtor’s discharge under section 727(a)(4)).

04-20-01         Brown v. Timlake (In re Timlake), 2001 BNH 017 (finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof under sections 523(a)(4), 523(a)(6), 727(a)(2), and 727(a)(4)(A)), and distinguishing the result under section 727(a)(4) from the decision in Marshall v. Kalantzis (In re Kalantzis), 2001 BNH 009.

04-02-01         Schultz v. AMEJRE, LLC (In re Schultz), 2001 BNH 014 (granting seller’s and lender’s motions for partial summary judgment because (1) it was unnecessary for the seller to execute and deliver a deed to the manufactured housing unit pursuant to RSA 477:44 to transfer title of the unit to the debtors because the unit was located on the debtors’ realty not on the realty of another; (2) in accordance with the terms of its mortgage, the lender’s security interest in the unit attached and was perfected at the time the unit was affixed to the land and the lender’s lien in the manufactured home continued and was in effect at the time the debtors filed their petition; and (3) the seller did not violate 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4) or (a)(5) by executing and delivering postpetition a deed that did not create, perfect, or enforce the lender’s lien).

03-23-01         Denton v. Girard (In re Girard), 2001 BNH 012 (denying the plaintiff's objection to discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A) because she had failed to meet her burden of proof and denying the denying the plaintiff's objection to discharge under section 523(a)(15) with regards to her claim relating to liens because she had filed to meet her burden of proof, but denying the debtor's discharge under section 523(a)(15) with respect to the plaintiff's indemnification claim).

03-23-01         Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Askenaizer (In re ZLGH Dev., Inc.), 2001 BNH 013 (distinguishing Bodwell Dev. Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (In re Bodwell Dev. Trust), 187 B.R. 63 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1995), and concluding that the general contractor and the debtor-developer in this case did not have a "whole or continuing" contract; determining pursuant to RSA 447:2 and 9 the extent and validity of the general contractor's mechanic's lien on lots in the debtor's development and finding pursuant to RSA 447:12 that the mechanic's lien had priority over the bank's construction mortgage)

03-19-01         In re Camann, 2001 BNH 011 (amending prior memorandum opinion by clarifying the Court's rationale for dismissing under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(3)), amending In re Camann, 2001 BNH 008 (dismissing sua sponte the debtor's Chapter 11 case for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) because there was no bankruptcy purpose being served by the case which involved a dispute between a solvent debtor and his former spouse regarding the disposition of marital assets under a five year old final state court divorce decree).

03-16-01         Vaillancourt v. The Granite Group (In re Vaillancourt), 260 B.R. 66 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (holding that debtors may use the state wild card exemption under RSA 511:2(XVIII) to exempt real property and may "stack" the exemption on top of the state homestead exemption contained in RSA 480:1).

02-27-01         Marshall v. Kalantzis (In re Kalantzis), 2001 BNH 009 (finding that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof under section 727(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(5), but denying the Debtor’s discharge under section 727(a)(4)(A) when the errors and omissions contained in the Debtor’s statement of finincial affairs and schedules were numerous and consistent with each other, but inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial).

02-22-01         In re Camann, 2001 BNH 008 (dismissing sua sponte the debtor's Chapter 11 case for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) because there was no bankruptcy purpose being served by the case which involved a dispute between a solvent debtor and his former spouse regarding the disposition of marital assets under a five year old final state court divorce decree), amended by In re Camann, 2001 BNH 011 (clarifying the Court's rationale for dismissing under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(3)).

02-13-01         Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Askenaizer (In re ZLGH Dev., Inc.), 2001 BNH 007 (finding that a general contractor holds a valid perfected mechanic's lien attachment under NH RSA 447:10 to the extent that the general contractor has a valid mechanic's lien even though the property description was not contained on the face of the writ but rather in an exhibit to the motion for ex parte attachment which was recorded with the writ at the registry of deeds).

01-31-01         Fanning v. Fanning (In re Fanning), 2001 BNH 004 (excepting from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) the debtor's obligation to maintain life insurance for his former spouse's benefit while alimony and property division awards remained unpaid and declining to except from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) the debtor's obligation to pay his former spouse her interest in the debtor's business as the obligation was not in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support but rather was a property      settlement dischargeable in Chapter 13).

US Bankruptcy Court
1000 Elm Street, Suite 1001
Manchester, NH 03101
(603) 222-2600
Please email Web Admin with any questions regarding this web site.