In re Borriello, 2009 BNH 039 (granting debtors' motion to convert their case from one under chapter 7 to one under chapter 13 because the debtors meet the eligibility requirements set forth in § 109(e), and creditor did not show that debtors exhibited extraordinary bad faith conduct as to preclude conversion.)
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.
M & M Equities, LLC v. New Alliance Bank (In re M & M Equities, LLC), 2009 BNH 037, 2009 WL 5713905 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (dismissing Count II of Plaintiff's complaint against NewAlliance Bank alleging violations of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act § 358-A, because NewAlliance Bank falls within the exception under § 358-A:3 for trade or commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the financial regulators of other states.)
FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Karagianis (In re Karagianis), 2009 BNH 036 (dismissing the plaintiff’s amended complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) for failure to meet the pleading standards under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), because the allegations: (1) failed to provide a factual basis for the court to infer the debtor’s intent when he made the credit card charges; and (2) incorporated by reference allegations from several complaints in separate cases).
Maroun v. Fremont Investment (In re Maroun), 2009 BNH 035 (granting Defendant's, Litton Loans, motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II, and VII because loan servicers are exempt from the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act § 358-A, and from the Truth In Lending Act; and granting Defendant's, Deutsche Bank, motion to dismiss as to Counts I and II, because Deutsche Bank falls within the exception of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act; and denying both Litton Loan's and Deutsche Bank's motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the complaint).
Monzione v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (In re Monzione), 2009 BNH 034 (denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as to Count I for violation of New Hampshire's Consumer Protection Act, § 358-A, because the Plaintiff adequately alleges facts that plausibly show that the violations occurred within the three-year statute of limitations; and granting Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Count II for violations under the Truth In Lending Act, because Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing disclosure violations, and because the action is time-barred).
Puzzo v. Martin (In re Martin), 419 B.R. 524 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint alleging various claims under § 523(a) because the Plaintiff failed to allege facts that plausibly give rise to a right to relief; and staying the judgment to allow Plaintiffs to re-plead their complaint).
In re Schatz, 426 B.R. 24 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (the debtor’s plan may “cure” and “reinstate” the bank’s loans under § 1123(d) over the life of the plan with the prepetition arrearage calculated at the default rate of interest and the post-petition arrearage calculated at the contract rate of interest; additionally, the bank is entitled to both prepetition and post-petition costs, charges, and attorneys’ fees related to the loans).
DeSteph v. State of Connecticut (In re DeSteph), 2009 BNH 032, 2009 WL 5171833 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint alleging violations of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, and violations of the New Hampshire Law § 358-C, because the State of Connecticut's actions fall within the exception under § 364(b)(4) for governmental proceedings, and the State of Connecticut is not a "debt collector" as defined by § 358-C).
In re Poliquin, 2009 BNH 031 (allowing debtor to amend her schedules to include property interests not previously listed, but denying debtor's claim of homestead exemption in a settlement pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522 because the exemption was untimely claimed and filed in bad faith; and lifting the automatic stay to allow the state court to complete litigation on the debtor's interest in the settlement agreement).
FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Finnerty (In re Finnerty), 418 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (finding that creditor did not meet its burden under the first and second elements of its claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) to except from discharge check advances on a credit line because the debtor had a reasonable basis for believing she could use the proceeds from the sale of her home to pay off the debt when advances were made).