Duby v. United States of America (In re Duby), 2010 BNH 009 (granting the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and finding that the Defendant violated both the automatic stay and the discharge injunction; and granting the Defendants’s cross-motion for summary judgment in part and finding that the Plaintiff is barred from an award of punitive damages and emotional distress damages for her claims against the federal government).
You are here
Opinions
The District of New Hampshire offers a database of opinions issued from 1999 to present. For a more detailed search, enter a keyword or case number in the search box above.
Maroun v. Fremont Investment & Loan (In re Maroun), 427 B.R. 200 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2010) (granting Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II, and VII because mortgage brokers are exempt from the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act § 358-A, and mortgage brokers are not "creditors" within the meaning of the Truth In Lending Act; and abstaining under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) from hearing the remaining claims in the “interest of justice” and in “respect for state law”).
Maroun v. Fremont Investment & Loan (In re Maroun), 427 B.R. 197 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2010) (granting Defendant's motion for the Court to abstain from adjudicating the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c), because claims were not core proceedings and could be more properly and efficiently adjudicated in another forum).
Lassonde v. Stanton (In re Stanton), 2010 BNH 006 (granting in part and denying in part creditor’s motion for summary judgment on his complaint under various sections of 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a) and 727 arising from a prepetition construction contract and based on the debtors’ false oaths, concealment of assets, or failure to explain a loss of assets in their chapter 7 bankruptcy, and collateral estoppel from a prepetition state court judgment against the debtors involving a defamation claim).
In re Rodger, 423 B.R. 591 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2010) (granting the trustee’s motion under 11 U.S.C. § 1329 to modify the confirmed plan of these “below median” debtors to require them to turn over all income tax refunds received in the future, even in years four and five of their plan, consistent with the Court’s prior decisions in In re Michaud, 399 B.R. 365 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) and In re Watson, 417 B.R. 165 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009), as 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1) is not a bar to the turnover of disposable income beyond the applicable commitment period where debtors voluntarily propose and obtain confirmation of a plan longer than three years).
Notinger v. Black (In re Simply Media, Inc.), 2010 BNH 004 (granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as the plaintiff/trustee failed to raise a material factual dispute in the summary judgment record as to whether the defendant breached his fiduciary duties as a director of the debtor under Delaware law as alleged).
Smith v. IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. (In re Winter), 2010 BNH 003 (granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to § 547 claim because the transfer was not "for or on account of an antecedent debt" owed by the Debtor).
Gembitsky v. DeSteph (In re DeSteph), 425 B.R. 39 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2010) (partially dismissing one count for breach of contract and completely dismissing three counts for violation of Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, violation of New Hampshire's Uniform Securities Act, and Conversion, because those claims were time-barred; allowing the Plaintiff to proceed on remainder of claims; and holding that the discovery-rule under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4 only applies to claims where a more specific statute of limitations does not govern).
Notinger v. Zsofka (In re Zsofka), 2010 BNH 001 (granting Plaintiff's request for turnover under § 542 for rental proceeds and half interest in escrowed funds owed to the Debtor, which was to be set off against half interest in escrowed funds owed to Defendant).
In re Borriello, 2009 BNH 039 (granting debtors' motion to convert their case from one under chapter 7 to one under chapter 13 because the debtors meet the eligibility requirements set forth in § 109(e), and creditor did not show that debtors exhibited extraordinary bad faith conduct as to preclude conversion.)