Sardone v. Morrissette (In re Morrissette), 2001 BNH 019 (judgment in favor of Debtor’s ex-spouse on claim to except obligation arising out of divorce decree from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C.§ 523(a)(15)).
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.
Brown v. Timlake (In re Timlake), 2001 BNH 017 (denying a complaint objecting to discharge because the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof under sections 523(a)(4), 523(a)(6), 727(a)(2), and 727(a)(4)(A), and distinguishing the result under section 727(a)(4) from the decision in Marshall v. Kalantzis (In re Kalantzis), 2001 BNH 009).
Schalebaum v. Town of Wolfeboro (In re Schalebaum), 273 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (denying Debtor’s motion to avoid lien that allegedly impaired homestead exemption pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) upon finding that homestead exemption did not attach to proceeds of voluntary sale of homestead; finding that town’s judicial attachment on homestead property did not attach to the proceeds of the voluntary sale of the property; and finding that “wildcard exemption” in RSA 511:2(XVIII) may be utilized to exempt cash proceeds from sale of property).
Belanger v. Fortier (In re Fortier), 2001 BNH 015 (judgment in favor of Debtor’s ex-spouse on claim to except indemnification agreement from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)).
Schultz v. AMEJRE, LLC (In re Schultz), 2001 BNH 014 (granting seller’s and lender’s motions for partial summary judgment because (1) it was unnecessary for the seller to execute and deliver a deed to the manufactured housing unit pursuant to RSA 477:44 to transfer title of the unit to the debtors because the unit was located on the debtors’ realty not on the realty of another; (2) in accordance with the terms of its mortgage, the lender’s security interest in the unit attached and was perfected at the time the unit was affixed to the land and the lender’s lien in the manufactured home continued and was in effect at the time the debtors filed their petition; and (3) the seller did not violate 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4) or (a)(5) by executing and delivering postpetition a deed that did not create, perfect, or enforce the lender’s lien).
Denton v. Girard (In re Girard), 2001 BNH 012 (denying the plaintiff’s objection to discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A) because she had failed to meet her burden of proof and denying the denying the plaintiff’s objection to discharge under section 523(a)(15) with regards to her claim relating to liens because she had failed to meet her burden of proof, but denying the debtor’s discharge under section 523(a)(15) with respect to the plaintiff’s indemnification claim).
Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Askenaizer (In re ZLGH Dev., Inc.), 2001 BNH 013 (distinguishing Bodwell Dev. Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (In re Bodwell Dev. Trust), 187 B.R. 63 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1995), and concluding that the general contractor and the debtor-developer in this case did not have a “whole or continuing” contract; determining pursuant to RSA 447:2 and 9 the extent and validity of the general contractor’s mechanic’s lien on lots in the debtor’s development and finding pursuant to RSA 447:12 that the mechanic’s lien had priority over the bank’s construction mortgage).
In re Camann, 2001 BNH 011 (amending prior memorandum opinion by clarifying the Court’s rationale for dismissing under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(3)), amending In re Camann, 2001 BNH 008 (dismissing sua sponte the debtor’s Chapter 11 case for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) because there was no bankruptcy purpose being served by the case which involved a dispute between a solvent debtor and his former spouse regarding the disposition of marital assets under a five year old final state court divorce decree).
Vaillancourt v. The Granite Group (In re Vaillancourt), 260 B.R. 66 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (holding that debtors may use the state wild card exemption under RSA 511:2(XVIII) to exempt real property and may “stack” the exemption on top of the state homestead exemption contained in RSA 480:1).
Marshall v. Kalantzis (In re Kalantzis), 2001 BNH 009 (finding that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof under sections 727(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(5), but denying the Debtor’s discharge under section 727(a)(4)(A) when the errors and omissions contained in the Debtor’s statement of financial affairs and schedules were numerous and consistent with each other, but inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial), aff’d, Kalantzis v. Marshall (In re Kalantzis), BAP No. NH 01-033 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Nov. 14, 2001) (summarily affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision which gave “careful attention” to the Debtor’s arguments and “thoughtful reasons” for the court’s rulings, findings, and conclusions).