In re Gaudette, 2002 BNH 008 (holding that Movant lacks standing to pursue a claim of exemption on behalf of the Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(I) and sustaining Trustee's objection to Debtor's claimed exemption because the OFS Pension Plan and Trust is not exempt under N.H. RSA § 512:21(V)).
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.
Smith v. WinBook Computer Corp. (In re Blue Fin Technologies, Inc.), 2002 BNH 007 (granting defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as made applicable to the Bankruptcy Code by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012, with regards to Counts III and VI because the complaint failed to state a cause of action that could be granted relief under Ohio law, but denying the defendant's motion to dismiss with regards to Counts I, II, IV, and V).
Systolic Networks, Inc. v. Bizfon, Inc. (In re Bizfon, Inc.), 2002 BNH 006 (denying plaintiff's motion to remand a removed case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) because the only remaining issues under the complaint involved claims resolution issues and as such constituted a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (C) and no basis existed to abstain from hearing the matter or to remand it for equitable reasons).
Sperry Concrete, Inc. v. Voisine (In re Voisine), 2002 BNH 005 (excepting a debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because the debtor's false statements regarding the status of his mortgage caused damage to the debtor's contractor in that the contractor deferred taking collection action which wuold have resulted in its receiving payment for services).
In re Spike Broadband Systems, Inc., 2002 BNH 004 (discussing modifications to proposed order granting motion to sell substantially all of the debtor's assets, including patents and other technology).
Bova v. St. Vincent De Paul Corp. (In re Bova), 272 BR 49 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2002) (avoiding Defendant's attachment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547).
Cohen v. Cohen (In re Cohen), 2002 BNH 002 (excepting the debtor's alimony obligation from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and the debtor's property settlement obligation from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)).
McClain v. American Student Assistance (In re McClain), 272 BR 42 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2002) (citing the three-part test of In re Garrett and finding that Debtor's student loans were nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) because the Debtor could not demonstrate that repayment of his loans would inflict undue hardship upon him).
Michels v. Sheridan, 2001 BNH 051 (overruling defendant’s objections and awarding attorney’s fees for work done as court appointed special counsel), aff’d, Sheridan v. Michels, 282 B.R. 79 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (agreeing with the bankruptcy court’s decision that it had jurisdiction to suspend an attorney from practicing before it for one year, due to the attorney’s repeated violations of the NH Rules of Professional Conduct, on the grounds that the court possessed inherent and statutory authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings and to enter suspension orders and affirming the bankruptcy court’s order awarding fees and costs incurred by special counsel in investigating and prosecuting the disciplinary action as the bankruptcy court had the power to sanction professional misconduct and that power extended to the imposition of monetary sanctions, including payment of attorney’s fees), vacated, Sheridan v. Michels (In re Sheridan), 2004 WL 603524, No. 02-9007 (vacating the bankruptcy court’s and BAP’s decisions for want of jurisdiction and holding that under the particular circumstances the bankruptcy court was not empowered to arrive at a final resolution of the attorney disciplinary matter, absent further district court participation and oversight, because the matter was a non-core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) as the omnibus disciplinary proceeding did not arise out of any matter directly affecting the bankruptcy court’s ability to administer one or more ongoing cases).
CGE Shattuck LLC v. Town of Jaffrey, New Hampshire (In re CGE Shattuck LLC), 272 B.R. 514 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (discussing the difference between 11 U.S.C. § 108(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) and denying defendant’s motion for summary judgement with regards to a tax refund under 11 U.S.C. § 505 because under section 108(a) the appeal period under state law had not expired and the debtor had properly preserved its rights to a tax refund under state law).