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.

Ford v. DeCosta (In re DeCosta), 2024 BNH 005 (holding that the debtors do not have a homestead exemption in their residence, which they transferred to a revocable trust prepetition, as there was no document in the registry of deeds on the petition date that would have provided the notice required by RSA 480:9 and their attempt to retain that homestead exemption was void under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) and/or voidable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 and 549).

In re Dionne, 2024 BNH 004 (contributions from Debtor’s parents that they promised to continue making postpetition on an “as needed” basis were insufficient on their own to constitute “regular income” with the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(30) and render the Debtor eligible for Chapter 13 relief as an “individual with regular income” under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e), regardless of whether the Court classified the contributions as loans or gifts).

N.H. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec. v. Mulcahy (In re Mulcahy), 2024 BNH 003 (determining that the department’s overpayment of unemployment compensation benefits to the debtor during the COVID-19 pandemic was a nondischargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) where the debtor obtained benefits by submitting false claim applications indicating that he was unemployed due to COVID-19, when the debtor was unemployed because he abandoned his job in March 2020).

Edwards v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (In re Edwards), 659 B.R. 24 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2024) (denying the government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) as the government’s actions—reducing the debtor’s post-discharge SSDI benefits in order to obtain payment on the debtor’s prepetition overpayment debt—were not a recoupment, which is a defense to a debtor’s claim that a creditor is violating the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524, but rather a setoff since there was not “one, ongoing, integrated transaction”).

Askenaizer v. Pierce (In re St. Laurent), 2024 BNH 001 (prepetition divorce decree entitled Chapter 7 Trustee to turnover of $35,150.80 from debtor’s ex-spouse, and precluded ex-spouse under res judicata principles from asserting set offs against the Trustee that she was not awarded in the divorce proceeding, and to which the Trustee did not otherwise assent).

In re Prospect-Woodward Home, 2023 BNH 007, issued Dec. 26, 2023 (Harwood, C.J.) (unpublished) (amending In re Prospect-Woodward Home, 2023 BNH 001, upon remand from the District Court, Civ. No. 23-cv-0326-LM (D.N.H. Oct. 16, 2023), to clarify the Court’s statements concerning RSA 447:5-8 and, pursuant to the court’s separate order of even date, reserving for another day the issue of whether RSA 447:8, rather than RSA 447:12, provides the rule of decision regarding how the sale proceeds reserve is to be distributed to the mechanics’ lienholders).

Coastal Capital, LLC v. Savage (In re Savage), 2023 BNH 006 (ruling in favor of the creditor with respect to its claim seeking to denying the debtors their discharges pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5), based on the debtors’ failure to satisfactorily explain what happened to funds they received from their company, and ruling in favor of the debtors with respect to the creditor’s claims (i) seeking to deny the debtors their discharges pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A), 727(a)(4)(A), and 727(a)(7); and (ii) seeking to except the creditor’s debt from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (a)(6)).

Ford, McDonald, McPartlin & Borden, P.A. v. Hooksett Landing, LLC (In re NH Highway Hotel Grp.), 2023 BNH 005 (awarding damages on default judgment for breach of purchase and sale agreement that contemplated the assignment of debtor’s right to purchase land and certain access rights; finding that, under New Hampshire law, economic loss doctrine barred claim for damages for negligent misrepresentation claim; and finding that liquidated damages clause in purchase and sale agreement was not enforceable).

Dahar v. Foistner (In re Foistner), 2023 BNH 004 (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss complaint based on insufficient service and process without prejudice subject to plaintiff perfecting service on certain individuals, corporations, trusts and trust beneficiaries; dismissing plaintiff’s claim that defendant-corporations’ assets were property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate; denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim that defendant-corporations, trustees and beneficiaries of the defendant-trusts were alter egos of the debtor, and that their veils should be pierced on claim of alter ego liability; denying motion to dismiss claim for successor liability against one of the corporate defendants; dismissing some of the plaintiff’s claims to avoid preferential, fraudulent  or post-petition transfer claims under Bankruptcy Code §§ 544, 547, 548 and 549; denying dismissal of aiding and abetting claim; and granting the plaintiff leave to perfect service pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7004(m) for cause, and to amend the complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) and Bankruptcy Rule 7015).

Berkley Insurance Company v. Keevers, et al. (In re Keevers), 2023 BNH 003 (denying joint debtors a chapter 7 discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and (a)(4)(A) (Counts I and II) based on their concealment of documents and financial information from which their financial condition could be ascertained without reasonable justification and reckless disregard of their disclosure obligations when they made material false oaths on their monthly operating reports and during the § 341 Meeting of Creditors, and entering judgment in the debtors’ favor as to Count III (11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(6)), finding that their failure to comply with the Court’s orders was not “willful” or intentional).