In re Moultonborough Hotel Group, LLC, 2012 BNH 006 (finding that the plan provision releasing claims against the debtor's principal and manager, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(3)(A), was a reasonable exercise of business judgment by the debtor in possession, but denying confirmation because the proposed cramdown interest rate which provided for no upward risk adjustment from the current prime rate did not satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A)(i) and the rationale of Till v. SCS Credit Corp, 541 U.S. 465 (2004)).
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.
In re Lambregtse, 2012 BNH 005 (denying motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because(1) the complaint does not definitively establish that the plaintiff's claims are barred by laches, preemption, and exemption under RSA § 358-A, (2) the defendant failedto establish under res judicata that there was a final judgment on the merits of this complaint, or that the Bankruptcy Court determined the alleged stay violations or alleged violations of New Hampshire state law as part of the discharge order, and (3) the Court can reasonably infer from the facts of the complaint that the act of acquiring a Home Equity Line of Credit is for personal, family, or household purposes).
In re Bloom, 2012 BNH 004 (ruling in connection with a motion filed by the debtor’s former spouse seeking to enforce a final divorce decree, which entered postpetition, that (1) the former spouse was entitled to the net proceeds of property that had been sold during the course of the bankruptcy case not the gross proceeds, (2) the chapter 7 trustee was not entitled to surcharge the property awarded to the former spouse with the chapter 7 trustee’s attorney’s fees, and (3) property transferred to the former spouse would not be transferred free and clear of an attachment obtained prepetition by the debtor’s creditors).
In re Richall, 470 B.R. 245 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2012) (denying chapter 13 trustee's motion to dismiss case under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) for lack of good faith, despite the above median debtors' proposing a sixty month plan with payments approximately one-half of their disposable because the debtors' plan provides for payment of all allowed unsecured claims in full in compliance with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(A), and in the absence of any evidence of inaccuracies in the computation of income or expenses or dishonesty in the bankruptcy process).
In re Egan, 469 B.R. 143 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2012) (holding that the Creditors do not hold validly perfected pre-judgment attachment liens on the Debtor’s property because they failed to domesticate foreign court order in a New Hampshire state court under the procedures proscribed in NH RSA § 524-A (the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act)).
Notinger v. Migliaccio (In re Fin. Res. Mortg., Inc.), 469 B.R. 487 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2012) (denying in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the summary judgment record failed to establish that the transfers at issue, in the trustee’s claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, and 548, were not of “an interest of the debtor” in property since the defendants made no attempt to trace their funds although the record did establish the existence of a trust based upon the conduct of the parties).
In re Culcasi, 2011 BNH 011 (denying confirmation of above median income debtors' plan for failure to apply all of their disposable income to plan payments, as required under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B), after concluding the debtors could not reduce their presumed projected disposable income under the means test because payments on an unapproved postpetition 401(k) loan used to pay in full a prepetition student loan could not be deducted from projected disposable income; one joint debtor could not use continuing losses from the operation of a business over the entire term of a sixty month plan to reduce projected disposable income and payments to creditors).
In re Momenta, Inc., 2011 BNH 010 (holding that the movant failed to provide evidence that goods delivered directly to the debtor’s customers were “received by the debtor” as required by 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9) and that 11 U.S.C. § 502(d) does not apply to administrative claims requested and allowed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503)).
In re Scannell, 453 B.R. 36 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2011)(holding that it is permissible for a debtor to use an exemption, which he did not claim pursuant 11 U.S.C. § 522(l) on Schedule C, in performing the calculation in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2) to avoid a judicial lien as along as the debtor would have been entitled to the exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)).
In re Trikeenan Tileworks, Inc., 2011 BNH 008 (denying confirmation of the Debtors’ plan because it violates the absolute priority rule and therefore is not fair and equitable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) and overruling, in part, the Debtors' objection to a competing plan, finding the competing plan was filed in good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3)).