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).
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.
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).
In re Graham, 2013 BNH 002 (sustaining in part and overruling in part the Trustee's objection to an application for final fees for chapter 13 debtor's attorney under 11 U.S.C. § 330).
Gordon v. Bank of America (In re Grenier), 2013 BNH 001 (recommending the District Court certify questions of law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court under Supreme Court Rule 34—New Hampshire law was sufficiently unclear and so prevented the bankruptcy court from predicting whether the New Hampshire Supreme Court would hold that a residential mortgage was validly recorded where the acknowledgment appended to the mortgage made no reference to the debtor-mortgagors).
Maville v. Maville (In re Maville), 2012 BNH 007 (granting partial summary judgment, holding that all the debtor's non-support, non-alimony obligations to his former spouse arising from divorce proceedings are excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. sec. 523((a) (15), notwithstanding dictum in state court decision).
In re Moultonborough Hotel Group, LLC, 2012 BNH 006 (finding that the plan provision releasing claims against the debtor's principal and manager, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(3)(A), was a reasonable exercise of business judgment by the debtor in possession, but denying confirmation because the proposed cramdown interest rate which provided for no upward risk adjustment from the current prime rate did not satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A)(i) and the rationale of Till v. SCS Credit Corp, 541 U.S. 465 (2004)).
In re Lambregtse, 2012 BNH 005 (denying motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because(1) the complaint does not definitively establish that the plaintiff's claims are barred by laches, preemption, and exemption under RSA § 358-A, (2) the defendant failedto establish under res judicata that there was a final judgment on the merits of this complaint, or that the Bankruptcy Court determined the alleged stay violations or alleged violations of New Hampshire state law as part of the discharge order, and (3) the Court can reasonably infer from the facts of the complaint that the act of acquiring a Home Equity Line of Credit is for personal, family, or household purposes).