United States Bankruptcy Court
District of New Hampshire

12-21-00         In re Amirault, 2000 BNH 055 (denying Trustee's motion to compromise estate's claims against estranged husband under prenuptial agreement, finding that it was not in the best interest of the estate).

11-28-00         In re Moran, 256 B.R. 842 (Vaughn, C.J. and Deasy, J.) (determining under 11 U.S.C. § 110(h) that (1) the presumptive value of petition preparer services is $30 per hour; (2) petition preparers can prepare a petition in a routine individual or joint consumer case in five hours or less; and (3) petition preparers need to file an application seeking approval of fees with the Court when their fees exceed $150).

11-22-00         In re Aurora Graphics, Inc, 255 B.R. 612 (rejecting creditor's claim for priority status pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(3), finding that     creditor's "co-employer" relationship with the Debtor precluded it from taking assignment of employee wage claims).

11-16-00         Schreiber v. Montalto (In re Kingsley), 2000 BNH 042 (granting summary judgment to Defendant on Count III of Chapter 7 Trustee's complaint seeking authority to sell the estate's interest and that of co-owners of a California corporation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(h), rejecting the Trustee's argument that disregarding the corporate entity would allow for the application of § 363(h)).

11-06-00         In re Kafanelis, 2000 041 (denying creditor's objection to Chapter 13 plan, finding that fact that debt may be excepted from discharge in Chapter 7 is not sufficient for finding of bad faith).

09-18-00         In re Colby,  2000 BNH 033 (denying creditor's request for attorney's fees and costs associated with motion for relief from the automatic stay, finding 11 U.S.C. § 506(b) inapplicable to post-confirmation attorney's fees and finding that applicable provision in promissory note violated N.H. RSA 361-C).

07-06-00         In re Smith, 2000 BNH 028 (granting motion for reconsideration of valuation of real estate upon new evidence; denying motion to subordinate lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 364(d), ruling that value of property should not be reduced by hypothetical sales costs and that existing lienholder was not adequately protected; and denying confirmation of plan, but giving Debtor opportunity to amend plan).

06-30-00         Chapman v. Tracey (In re Tracey), 250 B.R. 468 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2000) (rejecting res judicata theory in dischargeability action and finding collateral estoppel not applicable as necessary elements of section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) counts were not present in state court judgment and state court findings forming elements of section 523(a)(4) claim were not essential to the judgment).  

06-26-00         In re Page, 250 B.R.465 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2000)  (pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 348(f), trustee bound by uncontested value attributed to real estate in confirmed Chapter 13 plan after case converted to Chapter 7).

06-26-00         In re Tsoupas,  250 B.R. 466 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2000) (where Debtor resided in one apartment in multi-family dwelling of which he was part owner, homestead exemption only applied to portion of premises in which the Debtor resided; also, in valuing the homestead, the Court relied on the ratio of the square footage the apartment beared to the entire premises).

06-12-00         Gras v. Global Envtl. Solutions, Ltd. (In re Global Envtl. Solutions, Ltd.),  2000 BNH 023 (complaint brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548 by creditor was not frivolous nor was motion to dismiss brought in bad faith, therefore sanctions would not be imposed against the Plaintiff).

05-26-00         Neveu v. Martin (In re Martin), 2000 BNH 020 (holding that divorce stipulation requiring Debtor to pay for certain joint credit card debts was not alimony or support as contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden with regard to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)).

04-18-00         Bezanson v. Gaudette (In re R & R Associates of Hampton), 248 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. Apr. 18, 2000) (holding that Trustee's fraud action, brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a law firm that allegedly failed to disclose prepetition connections with the Debtor and its general partners was untimely; however, holding that the complaint did state a claim for fraud on the court).

04-18-00       Bezanson v. Choate (In re R & R Associates of Hampton), 248 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H.  2000) (holding that Trustee’s fraud action, brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a law firm that allegedly failed to disclose prepetition connections with the Debtor and its general partners was untimely; however, holding that the complaint did state a claim for fraud on the court). 

04-06-00         Commerce Bank & Trust Co. v. Perry Hollow Golf Club, Inc. (In re Perry Hollow Management Co., Inc. and Perry Hollow Golf Club, Inc.), 2000 BNH 013 (concurring with Judge Deasy's opinion in Banc of America Commercial Fin. Corp. v. CGE Shattuck, LLC (In re CGE Shattuck, LLC), Bk. No. 99-12287-JMD, CM No. 99-747 (Bankr.D.N.H.1999) that determination of whether real property is "single asset real estate" as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B) should not put form over substance, and finding that a single golf course operation that involves two separate corporations, one that holds the property and a one that operates the golf course and facilities, is not "single asset real estate").

2-29-00          In re Stewart, 246 B.R. 134 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2000) Holding that, in light of In re Weinstein, 164 F.3d 677 (1st Cir. 1999), 11 U.S.C. § 522(c) preempts the pre-January 1, 1999 carve-out found in N.H. RSA 511:2(XIX) with the result that the debtors may exempt three financial assets in full notwithstanding the fact that most of their debts arose before January 1, 1999, and finding that N.H. RSA 511:2(XIX), as preempted by 11 U.S.C. § 522(c), does not violate the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution).

02-11-00         In re Business Express, Inc., 2000 BNH 008 (former employee’s claim for lost wages and for reinstatement denied upon finding that there was no formal employment agreement or implied employment agreement under Connecticut law between the employee and the Debtor and where, in any event, sufficient cause existed for terminating the employment; also, the termination did not violate Connecticut’s Whistleblower Statute).

01-24-00         Askenaizer v. Dunham (In re Dunham), 2000 BNH 004 (transfers pursuant to a divorce settlement were not fraudulent transfers under N.H. RSA 545A:4 where there was no antecedent debt in the context of the divorce proceeding and where the distribution was within the range the divorce court would find if actually litigated, thus providing reasonably equivalent value for the transfer; also, the divorce settlement did not create a transfer with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors in violation of N.H. RSA 545-A:5).

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.