You are here


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.

DeWitt v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 2016 BNH 010 (granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B)—the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence of a statement of financial condition—and under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) because the plaintiffs did not present evidence of the existence of an express or technical trust, or that the elements of common law embezzlement were satisfied).

Askenaizer v. Recore Trading Company, LLC (In re Catco Recycling, LLC), 559 B.R. 293 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2016) (ordering the defendant, pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. $ 542(b), to turn over to the chapter 7 trustee the remainder of the final payment due under the terms of a purchase and sale agreement between the debtor and the defendant).

Cornell v. Envoy Mortgage, Ltd. (In re Hosch), 2016 BNH 008 (concluding that the common law presumption against merger of title prevented the defendant's mortgage from being extinguished upon the defendant's recording of the foreclosure deed where the deed was filed outside the statutory safe harbor under NH RSA §479:26 and the Chapter 7 trustee had recorded an intervening notice of hypothetical judgment lien creditor rights under 11 U.S.C. §544(a)).

In re Taal, 2016 BNH 007 (awarding debtor's counsel's attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to New Hampshire RSA § 361-C:2 and 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(B) in proportion with the debtor's success on the merits in various contested matters).

Greene v. Shaw (In re Shaw), 2016 BNH 006 (finding that executrix of co-debtor’s probate estate asserting a claim against the debtor for contribution did not sustain her burden under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) where she failed to establish that an inaccurate collateral list in the security agreement both the co-debtor and debtor executed in favor of the secured lender was a materially false “statement respecting the debtor’s . . . financial condition,” was made with intent to deceive the co-debtor, or that the co-debtor actually and reasonably relied upon the representations contained therein).

Browne v. Lombard (In re Lombard), 2016 BNH 005 (declining to deny the debtor's discharge because the plaintiff creditor did not present sufficient evidence that the debtor had failed to maintain adequate records pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3), did not demonstrate that the debtor experienced any unexplained loss of assets pursuant to § 727(a)(5), and failed to establish that the debtor made any materially false statements pursuant to § 727(a)(4)(A)).

Ladebush v. Beneficial New Hampshire, Inc. (In re Ladebush), 2016 BNH 004 (finding that the creditor did not violate the discharge injunction where nearly all the creditor’s post-discharge communications with the debtors fell within the safe harbor provided by 11 U.S.C. § 524(j) and those few that did not were not objectively coercive).

Askenaizer v. Anderson (In re Catco Recycling, LLC), 2016 BNH 003 (granting in part and denying in part the chapter 7 trustee's motion seeking summary judgment concluding that (1) the trustee established that he was entitled to judgment on his constructive fraud claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 548(a)(1)(B) and 544(b)(1) and RSA 545-A:4(I)(b)(1) and 5(I) and permitting recovery of the avoided transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550(a)(1), as the property transferred to the defendant was property of the debtor; and (2) the trustee had not established on the summary judgment record that there was no dispute as to whether the debtor had actual fraudulent intent as required by 11 U.S.C. §§ 548(a)(1)(A) and 544(b)(1) and RSA 545-A:4(I)(a) to avoid the transfer pursuant to those statutes).

Smith v. Pollack (In re Pollack), 2016 BNH 002 (denying the chapter 7 trustee’s claims that the debtor’s transfer of sale proceeds was fraudulent under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1), 548(a)(1)(B) and (e)(1), or RSA 545-A:4(I)(b) as the trustee failed to meet his burden of proof).

In re Williams, 2016 BNH 001 (overruling the debtor’s objection to his former wife’s claim because the debtor’s obligation under the couple’s divorce decree to pay her $20,000 so that she could buy a replacement vehicle was a “domestic support obligation” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A), which must be paid in full in the debtor’s chapter 13 plan as required by the provisions of 11 U.S.C. §§ 507(a)(1)) and 1322(a)(2)).