Robert Wolfe Assocs. v. Desmond (In re Desmond), 2006 BNH 009 (denying Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment because a mortgage discharge did not relieve the Plaintiff of the underlying obligations and because material issues of fact exist as to the obligations).
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 Desmond, 2006 BNH 008 (granting relief from the automatic stay because there is no equity in the property, and concluding, for the purposes of the motion for relief, that the movant is owed $2,564,512 on its mortgages and security interests in the property, plus attorneys’ fees of $47,327.08 and foreclosure costs of $2,011.41).
In re Baldassaro, 338 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2006) (outlining, in a case of first impression in this district, seven factors the Court should examine in applying the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether a second bankruptcy filing within one year of the dismissal of a prior case was presumptively filed “not in good faith” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C) and conditioning, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B), the continuation of the automatic stay as to the one creditor who had objected to the debtor’s motion to continue the stay, by requiring the debtor to make timely mortgage payments for the succeeding six months absent which the creditor could obtain relief from the stay by filing an affidavit under the provisions of LBR 9071-1).
Ford v. Skorich (In re Skorich), 337 B.R. 441 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2006) (deciding that the chapter 7 trustee could not avoid as a preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547 a prepetition transfer of proceeds from the sale of marital property into a court ordered escrow account during a pending divorce because under Davis v. Cox, 356 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2004), and New Hampshire law, the former non-debtor spouse did not hold a claim within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code at the time of the transfer and therefore was not a creditor of the debtor until the final divorce decree awarding the former non-debtor spouse the escrow funds was entered postpetition), aff’d, Case No. 06-cv-97-PB (D.N.H. Aug. 29, 2006) (affirming bankruptcy court’s decision not to avoid the alleged preferential transfer).
In re Carey, 2006 BNH 005 (denying application for fees and expenses to the extent that debtors’ counsel sought to be paid from the bankruptcy estate for fees and expenses incurred pre-conversion, during the chapter 7 phase of the debtors’ case, because debtors’ counsel was not employed under 11 U.S.C. § 327 and was not entitled to compensation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1) for the reasons explained by the United States Supreme Court in Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004)).
Mullen v. Kalil (In re Mullen), 337 B.R. 744 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2006) (holding that the estate was fully administered and the case was properly closed such that section 546(a) barred, upon reopening of the case, the pursuance of an avoidance action that was known and contemplated (but not pursued) by the trustee prior to closure).
Gallagher v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Gallagher), 2006 BNH 003 (denying discharge of student loan because repayment will not impose undue hardship).
In re Amherst Techs., LLC, 335 B.R. 502 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2006) (resolving a disputed chapter 7 trustee election in eleven jointly administered cases pursuant to the terms of 11 U.S.C. § 702 and FRBPs 2003, 2006, and 2009 and concluding that one of the creditors who requested the election was not qualified to do so or to vote in the election as the creditor had an interest materially adverse to other unsecured creditors based upon the creditor’s apparent receipt of preferential transfers totaling more than $4 million).
Chappell v. United States Department of Agriculture Rural Housing (In re Chappell), 2006 BNH 001 (granting partial summary judgment because the recording of an abstract of judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 3201 attached to a debtor’s beneficial interest in real property held by a trust created by the debtor’s mother where under New Hampshire law the debtor’s beneficial interest was vested, was subject to attachment and was not protected by a spendthrift provision).