In re Amoskeag Inn Corporation, 2010 BNH 019 (granting motion to compel Choice Hotels International, Inc., to comply with terms of a franchise agreement because the franchise agreement had not been terminated prior to the filing of the Debtor's bankruptcy).
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.
U.S. Trustee v. Perrotta (In re Perrotta), 2010 BNH 018 (denying the debtor’s motion to dismiss the U.S. Trustee’s amended complaint as untimely where the debtor asked the court to treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012 because: (1) the record still left genuine issues of material fact regarding the U.S. Trustee’s knowledge of evidence to support the amended counts and (2) the debtor had not demonstrated any prejudice in the U.S. Trustee’s alleged delay in filing the amended complaint).
In re O’Neil, 2010 BNH 017 (denying motion for determination that proceeds from sale of debtor's stock in his business should not be part of the bankruptcy estate, because marital court's order appointing a receiver did not effectively attach debtor's stock and did not divest the debtor of legal title in the stock so as to prevent the stock from passing into the bankruptcy estate).
In re Visconti, 426 B.R. 422 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2010) (sustaining the chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claim of a homestead exemption under NH RSA 480:1 because, while the debtor lived in the property on the petition date, he had no ownership interest in the home and was not married to the owner when he filed for bankruptcy).
Total Pride Landscaping, Inc. v. Continental Paving, Inc. et al (In re Total Pride Landscaping, Inc.), 2010 BNH 015 (holding that a pile of organic compost sitting on the defendants’ land was property of the debtor’s estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 and subject to turnover under 11 U.S.C. § 542; holding that defendants violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) when they refused to turn over the compost pile or to provide the debtor with access for its removal but declining to award damages due to insufficient evidence; declining to award statutory damages for defendants’ counterclaims for timber trespass under NH RSA § 227-J:8 because damaged trees were not on the defendants’ land but awarding compensatory damages for restoration costs).
In re Corbett, 425 B.R. 51 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2010) (denying a motion to reopen a no-asset chapter 7 case to add omitted creditors under the procedure derived from In re Walker, 195 B.R. 187 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1996) in light of Colonial Surety Co. v. Weizman, 564 F.3d 526 (1st Cir. 2009) because Weizman places the burden on the debtor to show cause that the omission was innocent and the equities justify reopening; debtors must file a verified motion or affidavit providing enough factual detail to justify reopening, after which the Court would issue an order to reopen giving notice to creditors).
Notinger v. Zsofka (In re Zsofka), 2010 BNH 013 (finding that dissolution of a partnership occurred when the debtor filed for bankruptcy; however, because filing of bankruptcy was not in contravention of the partnership agreement, New Hampshire law allows the bankruptcy estate to request judicially-ordered wind up and termination upon cause shown).
In re Rodger, 2010 BNH 012 (denying the debtors’ motion to alter or amend the decision and order in In re Rodger, 2010 BNH 005, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023, because the debtors did not establish a manifest error of law or fact with respect to the modification of a sixty-month plan for below median debtors).
In re Seff Enterprises & Holdings, LLC, 2010 BNH 011 (granting motion to dismiss involuntary Chapter 7 case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305 because the purpose of the bankruptcy process is not achieved, both adversary proceedings are non-core and would be more appropriately decided in another forum, and the trustee has already filed her report of no distribution).
In re Jennings, 2010 BNH 010 (denying a debtor’s motion to grant a mortgage and a priming lien on several of his properties to secure payment for bankruptcy professionals in lieu of a retainer because, although the proposed mortgage did not create a conflict of interest under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) and the standards of In re Martin, 817 F.2d 175 (1st Cir. 1987), the debtor failed to establish that the secured creditors subject to the priming lien would be adequately protected under 11 U.S.C. § 364(d)(1)).