In re Crete, 2024 BNH 006 (confirming that the automatic stay never went into effect in this case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(A)(i) and finding that in rem relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4)(B) was warranted given the multiple bankruptcy filings by the debtor and the non-debtor codebtor that evidenced a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors).
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.
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).