In re Clarkeies Market, L.L.C., 2003 BNH 002 (finding that (1) an allonge that consolidated a revolving loan with three separate promissory notes, but did not amend the security agreements, did not effect a cross collateralization of all of the obligations; and (2) a creditor who retained collateral without conducting a public or private sale would not be entitled to a deficiency judgment under the UCC and therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1), is not entitled to an unsecured deficiency claim).
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.
Schlosser v. Garofalo (In re Garofalo), 2003 BNH 001 (denying the Plaintiffs' nondischargeability complaints because they did not meet their burden of proof under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A); additionally, the traditional factors relating to piercing the corporate veil were not present) [Note- duplicate opinions issued in: Rutter v. Garofalo, Adv. No. 01-1106-MWV; Evans v. Garofalo, Adv. No. 01-1108-MWV; Weithman v. Garofalo, Adv. No. 01-1109-MWV; Kuck v. Garofalo, Adv. No. 01-1112-MWV; & Weithman v. Garofalo, Adv. No. 01-1113-MWV].
Peno v. Peno (In re Peno), 2002 BNH 039 (denying Movant's motion for relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, finding that, although there is a payment default, the property is being properly maintained pursuant to joint tenancy agreement, the first mortgage is substantially current, ad adequate protection is unnecessary at the present time; additionally, even though the Debtor does not have equity in the property, the property is necessary for a Chapter 13 reorganization).
In re LCC Financial Corp., 2002 BNH 038 (denying Debtor's motion to sell a portion of its active loan portfolio and to use a portion of the proceeds as cash collateral, finding that the Debtor had not met its burden under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f); further, adopting the reasoning of In re Perroncello, 170 B.R. 189 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1994) and holding that, in order to satisfy the requirements of section 363(f)(3), the sale price must exceed the face value of all liens).
John Hancock Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Sloane (In re Sloane), 2002 BNH 037 (holding that the plaintiff did not sustain its burden of proof under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) with respect to whether the debtor made a false statement regarding his company's ability to fulfill its obligation under an agreement to charter a sailing vessel and, therefore, any debt related to the failure to provide the vessel vwas dischargeable).
In re LCC Finance Corp., 2002 BNH 036 (denying the Debtor's motion for further use of cash collateral, finding that the Debtor has not met its burden of convincing the Court that there is adequate protection for the continued use of Citicorp Leasing, Inc.'s ("CLI's") cash colalteral; granting CLI's motion for relief from the automatic stay, finding that there is no equity in the collateral held by CLI and that the Debtor has not met its burden of demonstrating that a plan of reorganization is in prospect; and, to the extent that it is not already moot, denying CLI's motion to vacate the wage order).
In re Marisco, 2002 BNH 034 (applying In re Marsico, 278 B.R. 1 (bankr. D.N.H. 2002) in sustaining creditors' objections to debtor's claim of exemption in a residence under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(1) where the debtor did not occupy his New Hampshire property as his principal residence).
Sperl v. New Hampshire Higher Educ. Assistance Foundation (In re Sperl), 2002 BNH 035 (excepting debtor's student loan consolidation note from discharge because it was an "educational" loan within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and the debtor failed to establish that repayment would impose an undue hardship).
UmbrellaBank, FSB v. Michel (In re Michel), 2002 BNH 033 (granting Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Defendant's First Counterclaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012, because the counterclaim failed to state a cause of action that could be granted relief under Illinois law).
Notinger v. Liimatainen (In re Liimatainen), 2002 BNH 032 (denying the trustee's amended complaint because the trustee failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtors' discharge should be denied under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), (a)(4)(D), or (a)(5) where many of the allegations related to separate corporate entities whose assets and liabilties were not property of the estate and did not pertain to the debtors' individual financial affairs).