Ezenia! Inc. v. Nguyen (In re Ezenia! Inc.), 536 B.R. 485 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2015) (disallowing claim of debtor's former CEO for severance benefits under employment contract, liquidating his claim for deferred compensation as of the petition date, disallowing claim for damages related to erroneous income reporting to IRS, and sanctioning former CEO for spoliation of evidence and failure to produce information during discovery process).
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.
Piotrowski v. Boulard (In re Boulard), 2015 BNH 004 (finding that the plaintiff did not hold a debt which could be excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) because the plaintiff failed to establish that the debtor was liable to her on her claim of wrongful termination under New Hampshire’s whistleblower statute, NH RSA 275-E).
Bates v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Bates), 2015 BNH 003 (determining damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) on account of the creditor’s violation of the discharge injunction in 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) and finding that the debtors were not entitled to any compensatory damages for out-of-pocket expenses or emotional distress but were entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, in a reduced amount, and an award of punitive damages).
In re Mizula, 2015 BNH 002 (granting the chapter 13 trustee's motion to modify the debtors' confirmed plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 to increase total plan payments, after concluding that an inheritance acquired by the debtor-husband after confirmation and more than 180 days after the petition date, but before the case was closed, dismissed, or converted, was property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. §§ 541(a)(5)(A) and 1306(a)(1)).
Cornell v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (In re Pellerin), 529 B.R. 801 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2015) (finding that the debtors’ mortgage was not properly recorded as the acknowledgment was sufficiently defective under the Uniform Recognition of Acknowledgment Act, NH RSA 456-A, and the long-standing judicial policies in New Hampshire regarding the sufficiency of mortgages and therefore it could not provide a lien creditor with constructive notice; for that reason the chapter 7 trustee was entitled to have the mortgage avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(1) and preserved for the benefit of the debtors’ bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 551).
Gray v. Tacason (In re Tacason), 2014 BNH 017 (determining debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) after affording factual findings in state court order preclusive effect; in state court contempt proceeding, the state court had found facts sufficient for bankruptcy court to find on summary judgment that debtor had caused willful and malicious injury to the plaintiff).
In re Tacason, 2014 BNH 016 (reducing fee award to debtor's counsel on account of unnecessary chapter 13 filing for which debtor was ineligible under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e); denying debtor's request for court to approve after-the-fact employment of debtor's counsel in chapter 11 under 11 U.S.C. § 327 and denying all compensation to debtor's counsel for legal services performed during the period he was not employed by the estate; sanctioning debtor's counsel for failing to properly disclose fee arrangement with debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 329 and taking estate funds without court approval under 11 U.S.C. § 330).
Gordon v. Vilela (In re Vilela), 2014 BNH 015 (avoiding the debtor’s transfer of her half of the proceeds, from the sale of her home, to her former father-in-law as a constructively fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B) and permitting recovery from the defendant as the initial transferee in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 550(a)(1)).
In re Taal, 520 B.R. 370 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2014) (denying creditor's motion to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) and for in rem relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4); despite three prior filings by non-debtor spouse, two of which affected the creditor's collateral, the evidence in the record did not warrant dismissal or provide a basis for in rem relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) in this debtor's first bankruptcy case of record).
In re Iodice, 2014 BNH 013 (denying creditor's objection to the debtor's homestead exemption pursuant to New Hampshire RSA 480:1: the debtor owned two parcels of contiguous real property, one of which was undisputed homestead property; the debtor was able to exempt the disputed parcel, despite not having actively used that parcel during his bankruptcy case, because he had previously used it in connection with the undisputed homestead property, and because the creditor did not present sufficient evidence that the debtor intended to permanently abandon it).