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.

Kriss v. U. S. (IRS) (In re Kriss), 2019 BNH 003, issued Sept. 27, 2019, amended Oct. 1, 2019 (unpublished) (granting in part and denying in part defendant United States of America’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as follows: (1) debts arising from untimely filed federal income tax returns were excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B); (2) debts consisting of unpaid post-petition interest on priority claims that were paid in full through debtor’s chapter 13 plan were excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(2) and 507(a)(8)(C); (3) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether post-discharge notices sent by IRS to the debtor relating to tax years 2008-2011 violated discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2), precluding judgment on the pleadings; (4) IRS had not waived sovereign immunity with respect to emotional distress damage claim, entitling the defendant to judgment on the pleadings, and (5) debtor stated plausible claim for attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions, precluding judgment on the pleadings).

Morris v. Massachusetts Educ. Fin. Auth. (In re Morris), 2019 BNH 002 (holding that the repayment of the debtor’s student loan debt would not impose an undue hardship within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) where the debtor’s household income would be sufficient to cover his student loans payments if the debtor were able to obtain another restaurant job making roughly the same money he made before he voluntarily left his last position).

Rissala v. New Hampshire Higher Educ. Assistance Found. (In re Rissala), 2019 BNH 001 (holding that the repayment of the debtor’s student loan debt would not impose an undue hardship within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) where in the near future his retirement benefits would be sufficient to cover the payment and leave him with a material surplus each month, and debtor was eligible for a zero monthly payment program in the interim).

In re Babineau, 2018 BNH 012, issued Dec. 18, 2018 (unpublished) (overruling chapter 13 debtor's objection to creditor-spouse's proof of claim, finding that attorney's fees awarded to creditor-spouse in divorce proceeding and incurred proving that debtor misrepresented his income to avoid paying creditor-spouse additional alimony is a “domestic support obligation” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101 (14A), entitled to priority and payment in full pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 507 (a)(1) and 1322(a)(2)).

In re Evarts, 2018 BNH 011 (overruling the debtor’s objection to the mortgagee’s proof of claim, which challenged escrow and hazard insurance charges and the amount of the principal balance under the loan modification agreement, as the debtor failed to present substantial evidence that would permit the Court to disallow these components of the claim in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)).

In re ‌Burrows, 2018 BNH 010 (overruling the trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claim of homestead exemption under NH RSA 480:1 in debtor’s abutting parcel of land as the debtor actually used the adjoining lot in order to enjoy his home).

In re Vertullo, 2018 BNH 009 (holding that chapter 13 debtors may cure defaults under a mortgage and maintain payments pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(1), where a mortgagee has conducted a foreclosure auction prepetition but has failed to complete the foreclosure sale by recording a deed before the debtor files chapter 13 bankruptcy, continuing to follow Judge Deasy’s decision in In re Beeman, 235 B.R. 519 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999), and declining to follow the BAP’s decision in TD Bank, N.A. v. LaPointe (In re LaPointe), 505 B.R. 589 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2014)).

Browne v. Lombard (In re Lombard), 2018 BNH 008 (after a trial on the merits on the plaintiff's 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) claims determining that (1) claim preclusion barred the relitigation of certain aspects of the claims, (2) that the plaintiff's claims lacked merit on substantive grounds, and (3) that the plaintiff's post-trial motion to conform the pleadings to the evidence presented at trial had to be denied because the defendant had not implicitly consented to the litigation of an unpleaded claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b)(2)).

Browne v. Lombard (In re Lombard), 2018 BNH 007 (finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(c) to maintain their claims to deny the debtor's discharge per 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), and, alternatively, finding the § 727(a)(4)(A) claims were without merit).

Shelzi v. Foistner (In re Foistner), 2018 BNH 006 (granting in part and denying in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to FRBP 12(b)(6), dismissing the plaintiff’s counts under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4) for failure to state a claim where plaintiff merely alleged that the defendant obtained money from her by use of a materially false statement of financial condition without any detail of what the statement was or how it was false, and did not allege a basis for technical trust sufficient to establish that the defendant, as manager of a limited liability company, was acting in a fiduciary capacity with respect to the members of the limited liability company).

Pages