In re Piandes, Bk. No. 22-10210-MAF (Bankr. D.N.H. Aug. 18, 2022) (denying debtor’s motion seeking reconsideration of the court’s order granting relief from the automatic stay because (a) the stay has terminated with respect to the residence pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(c)(1) and 554(d) and therefore relief from the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) is no longer necessary, and (b) even if relief were necessary, relief from the stay would be appropriately granted under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) as the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization).
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.
Pope v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2012 SC2 Title Trust, et al. (In re Pope), 2022 BNH 004 (determining that a mortgagee and its mortgage loan servicer (the “defendants”), were liable to the plaintiff-debtor on her claims of breach of contract, violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) and contempt of the court’s order confirming the plaintiff-debtor’s chapter 13 plan where the defendants failed to treat the plaintiff-debtor’s mortgage loan as current and misapplied post-petition escrow payments).
In re Brady, 2022 BNH 003 (sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtor’s assertion of a separate homestead exemption under RSA 480:1 on behalf of her non-debtor spouse as he is not an owner of the couple’s residence, and sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtor’s similar amendment to Schedule D as the homestead exemption does not create a statutory or other type of lien on the couple’s residence in favor of a non-debtor, non-owner spouse).
In re St. Laurent, 2022 BNH 002 (sustaining the chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claim of a homestead exemption under RSA 480:1 in the proceeds from the sale of the debtor’s marital home as the debtor was not an owner of the property at the time of his divorce and thus was unable to satisfy the ownership requirement).
Robinson v. Robinson (In re Robinson), 2022 BNH 001 (denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as the findings of the Massachusetts state court special verdict were not sufficient for this court to apply collateral estoppel to find the state court judgment debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), or (a)(6)).
In re Vrusho, 2021 BNH 006 (denying creditor’s motion under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(6)(A) for leave to file proof of claim after bar date based on insufficient notice, where: (i) creditor’s attorney in related state court collection proceeding received actual notice of commencement of case and claims bar date, (ii) sufficient nexus existed between attorney’s representation of creditor in state court proceeding and creditor’s proof of claim, (iii) creditor’s attorney informed creditor of bankruptcy case, and accordingly, (iv) actual notice of bankruptcy filing and bar date was imputed to creditor).
In re Delong, 2021 BNH 005 (denying the debtor’s motion to avoid a creditor’s lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) as the debtor could not include an exemption of his non-debtor spouse in the lien avoidance calculation).
In re Hopkins, 2021 BNH 004 (sustaining the chapter 13 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claim of a homestead exemption under NH RSA 480:3-a on account of his deceased spouse’s interest in the homestead, as RSA 480:3-a applies to protect surviving spouses who do not have an ownership interest in their residence at the time of the homeowner’s death; here, the debtor was only entitled to claim a homestead exemption on account of his ownership interest in the property pursuant to RSA 480:1).
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Schleicher & Stebbins Hotels, L.L.C. (In re Old Cold, LLC), 2021 BNH 003 (denying leave to amend complaint on futility grounds because proposed amended claims were either precluded by final sale order, application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or expiration of statute of limitations).
In re Corson, 2021 BNH 002 (in sustaining the chapter 7 Trustee’s objection to the priority treatment of the creditor’s unsecured proof of claim for guardian ad litem fees under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B), the court determined that: (1) the creditor, who served as the court-appointed guardian ad litem in the debtor’s divorce proceeding, was not a “legal guardian” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A)(A)(i) and, accordingly, that the claim was not a “domestic support obligation” as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A)(A)-(D) entitled to priority treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B)).