Pope v. U.S. Bank, et al. (In re Pope), 2023 BNH 002 (applying the lodestar method to determine plaintiff counsel’s entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) and determining that plaintiff counsel’s entitlement to attorney’s fees pursuant to § 25 of the plaintiff’s mortgage and New Hampshire state law required consideration of the same factors).
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 Prospect-Woodward Home, 2023 BNH 001 (determining that RSA 447:12-a did not govern a priority dispute between a construction contractor’s mechanic’s lien and a construction lender’s mortgage and finding that the construction contractor’s mechanic’s lien had priority over the construction lender’s mortgage, pursuant to New Hampshire’s general race-notice rule, as the construction lender was at least on inquiry notice regarding the contractor’s unrecorded interest in the property as tree clearing work had commenced on the project before the construction mortgage was recorded), aff’d in part, vacated in part, Civ. No. 23-cv-0326-LM (D.N.H. Oct. 16, 2023).
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).
Pope v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2012 SC2 Title Trust, et al. (In re Pope), 647 B.R. 597 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2022) (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), aff’d, Brady v. Sumski, No. 1:22-cv-00272-SM (D.N.H. Aug. 23, 2023).
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, 634 B.R. 660 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2021) (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).