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.

In re Perry, 2013 BNH 013 (overruling debtor’s objection to claim and holding that debtor had failed to provide substantial evidence under Massachusetts law that he did not owe arrearages asserted in a domestic support obligation claim filed by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue).

In re James, 2013 BNH 011 (dismissing chapter 13 case as filed in bad faith pursuant to section 1307(c) because there was no substantive change in the debtor's circumstances and because the debtor had, by his continued manipulation of the bankruptcy system, significantly delayed creditor's recovery).

In re Shea, 2013 BNH 009 (sanctioning the plaintiff’s failure to appear at a pretrial conference, under Bankruptcy Rule 7016(f), and also the plaintiff’s failure to withdraw her complaint after learning that the legal claims were not supported by evidence, under Bankruptcy Rule 9011).

In re Isaacson Steel, Inc. & Isaacson Structural Steel, 2013 BNH 010 (resolving disputes between secured creditors over the allocation of proceeds from the sale of the debtor's assets and cash reserves after cessation of operations resulting in a distribution of proceeds from the sale of inventory traceable to a secured creditor's collateral to such creditor; distribution to a secured creditor of the actual amount paid for postpetition real estate taxes as an administrative expense under section 503(b)(1)(A) &(B); and allocation of the remaining tax escrow proceeds between secured creditors for jointly administered debtors based on each debtor's relative use and benefit from use of the real property).

In re Stevens, 2013 BNH 008 (denying a creditor's motion to dismiss a chapter 13 debtor's petition as being filed in bad faith, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c), because the moving creditor did not establish a sufficient evidentiary record to satisfy his burden of proof that the Debtor either (1) purposefully understated the value of certain assets on his schedules, or (2) failed to make an honest or diligent effort to list all of his debts on his schedules).

Carbonneau v. Federal Nat'l Mort. Assn. (In re Carbonneau), 2013 BNH 007 (granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment after determining that the debtor's real property had been sold at a foreclosure sale prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, did not become part of the bankruptcy estate of 11 U.S.C. § 541, and was not subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362; the foreclosure sale had been completed under N.H. R.S.A. § 479:26, despite errors in documents recorded with the foreclosure deed).

In re Hopkinton Indep. School, Inc., 499 B.R. 158 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2013) (denying secured creditor’s request for administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b) because the expenditures at issue did not benefit the bankruptcy estate—the secured creditor incurred costs to preserve its collateral and sought to recover those costs from the estate, where the trustee did not use, sell or otherwise benefit from possession of the subject collateral).

In re Dolinak, 497 B.R. 15 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2013) (finding that chapter 13 debtors who were not eligible to receive a discharge because they received a chapter 7 discharge during the 4-year period preceding the petition date (chapter 20 debtors) could, through completion of a chapter 13 plan, void a wholly unsecured junior mortgage lien on their residence by operation of 11 U.S.C. §§ 506(a) and 1332(b), but only if the chapter 13 plan was proposed in good faith as required under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3))

In re PM Cross, LLC, 494 B.R. 607 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2013) (in granting the debtor’s mortgagee’s motion to dismiss a serial chapter 11 case, the court determined that: (1) the debtor was not a “small business debtor” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D) and, accordingly, that § 326(n) did not operate to prevent the automatic stay of § 362(a) from taking effect upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition; (2) the debtor’s single parcel of real property was property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to § 541(a), even though the chapter 11 petition was filed in the midst of the mortgagee’s foreclosure auction; (3) cause existed for dismissal under § 1112(b), as the debtor had filed the case in bad faith, just over six months after confirming a plan of reorganization in a prior chapter 11 case, in what was essentially a two party dispute between the debtor and the mortgagee, and only when it appeared that the debtor’s preferred purchaser would not be the high bidder at the foreclosure sale; and (4) while the mortgagee had violated the automatic stay of § 362(a) by concluding its foreclosure sale after the debtor’s bankruptcy petition was filed, an award of monetary damages to the debtor was not appropriate, given the imminent dismissal of the case).

In re Petuck, 2013 BNH 003 (after denying an extension of time to file a claim under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(3), the Court denied the Debtors' motion to alter or amend the order under Bankruptcy Rule 9023 seeking an extension of time to file a proof of claim after the expiration of the deadline under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1) because the Debtors failed to establish either cause to enlarge the applicable deadline under Bankruptcy Rule 3004 or excusable neglect for their failure to file the claim within the deadline or to delay seeking an extension until a month after it expired).

Pages