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).
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.
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)).
In re Weiner, 2015 BNH 013 (sustaining creditors' objections to the homestead exemption of the debtor and non-debtor spouse pursuant to NH RSA 480:1; the debtor and spouse had abandoned the property in question by moving to Costa Rica with no evidence of an intent to return).
Gordon v. White (In re Morgenstern), 2015 BNH 014 (determining that property of revocable trust, of which debtor was settlor and a beneficiary, was property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), that creditor's post-petition acceptance and recording of deed violated the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C § 362(a), and that deed was void; also determining that chapter 7 trustee was not an "individual" who could recover damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k); requiring creditor who violated the automatic stay to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees of chapter 7 trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) as a contempt sanction).
In re Tempnology, LLC, 2015 BNH 012 (approving a pre-confirmation sale of substantially all of the chapter 11 debtor’s assets pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b) finding that the proposed sale was not a de facto plan, creditors were afforded protections consistent with the statutory safeguards of the chapter 11 confirmation process, there was a valid business reason for the proposed sale outside the confirmation process, and the proposed sale made good sense in the overall context of the reorganization)
In re Tempnology, LLC, 2015 BNH 011 (determining that exclusive distribution rights and rights to use the debtor's trademarks under a pre-petition co-marketing and distribution agreement that also granted a non-exclusive license to the debtor's intellectual property were not rights to intellectual property that the licensee could retain post-rejection pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(1)(B)).