In re Foistner, 2018 BNH 005 (denying the debtor’s motion to vacate the Court’s order overruling his objection to the appearance of creditor’s counsel pursuant to FRBP 60(b)(3) as being wholly without merit and finding that an order to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions pursuant to FRBP 9011 against the debtor and/or the debtor’s counsel was warranted).
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.
Iudice v. Murphy (In re Murphy), 2018 BNH 004 (denying the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to FRCP 12(c) with respect to her claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) and denying the debtor/defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the plaintiff’s claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) as the parties did not meet the requirements under Massachusetts law for applying issue preclusion to the state court judgment that established the debt owed by the debtor/defendant to the plaintiff for unjust enrichment and violation of Massachusetts' Chapter 93A).
Martin v. Pelley (In re Pelley), 2018 BNH 003 (awarding actual damages to the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) for violation of the automatic stay by the creditor/co-parent's filing motions in a pending state court parenting proceeding seeking (a) the payment of attorney’s fees, and (b) the freezing of the debtor’s anticipated prepetition tax refund so that its proceeds could be used to repay the creditor's prepetition overpayment of child support).
Hatton v. TD Bank, N.A (In re Hatton), 2018 BNH 002 (granting the bank’s motion under FRBP 12(b)(6) seeking to dismiss the debtor’s eight-count complaint as most of the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations under New Hampshire and federal law—specifically, RSA 508:4(I), 12 U.S.C. § 2614, and 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)—and several of the claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted—specifically, those seeking damages for violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2609, promissory estoppel, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; also finding the extension of statutes of limitations provision in 11 U.S.C. § 108(a) inapplicable).
In re Foistner, 2018 BNH 001 (allowing, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), a creditor to retract a mistaken withdrawal of a timely filed motion to extend the deadline to object to discharge and dischargeability of certain debts where doing so will not prejudice the debtor).
Town of Hampton v. Morgenstern (In re Morgenstern), 2017 BNH 019 (Municipality had claim against debtor under N.H. R.S.A. § 676:17(I) and (II) for civil penalties, attorney's fees, and costs. Court found civil penalties nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). The attorney's fees and costs were dischargeable to the extent based on prepetition debt.).
New Hampshire Department of Employment Security v. Hudson (In re Hudson), 2017 BNH 018 (determining that overpayment of unemployment compensation benefits was a nondischargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) where the debtor obtained benefits by submitting a series of weekly claim certifications containing materially false information that the debtor must have known was inaccurate)
Askenaizer v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Forrester), 2017 BNH 017 (concluding that an erroneous reference in a mortgage’s legal description to a unit that does not exist, where the legal description also contains correct references to the property’s unique tax identification number and street address, did not render the mortgage materially defective such that a Chapter 7 trustee could avoid the mortgage pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544).
Browne et al. v. Lombard (In re Lombard), 2017 BNH 015 (creditors' complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), where creditors asked court to determine dischargeability of alleged fraudulent transfer debt, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), without actually claiming a legal right to recover such a fraudulent transfer from the debtor).
Genetti v. Brazil (In re Brazil), 2017 BNH 016 (finding that the plaintiff sustained her burden to establish that a debt owed to her arising from the debtor’s reckless performance and subsequent breach of a construction contract should be excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) as one arising from false pretenses, false representations, and actual fraud).