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 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).

In re Watson, 417 B.R. 165 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (denying the chapter 13 trustee’s motions under 11 U.S.C. § 1329(a)(1) seeking retroactive modification of the debtors’ confirmed chapter 13 plans to require the debtors to turn over large 2008 income tax refunds for distribution to unsecured creditors based upon the rationale in the Court’s Michaud opinion, because such a modification of the debtors’ plans was fundamentally unfair, but providing that the trustee could file new or amended motions to modify to provide for the turnover of all future income tax refunds as appropriate under Michaud).

In re Hinsdale Greyhound Racing Assoc., Inc., 417 B.R. 162 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (granting the State of New Hampshire’s motion for relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 to settle a bond under Title XXIV Chapter 284 of New Hampshire law for amounts owed by the debtor under Chapter 284, and denying State’s setoff claim against the remainder of the bond for non-Chapter 284 obligations).

Rifken v. Entec Distribution, LLC (In re Felt Mfg. Co., Inc.), 2009 BNH 026 (holding that preference defendant did not prove its ordinary course of business defense under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2) because the debtor’s payments under a consignment agreement were made as a result of unusual collection efforts but that preference defendant did prove its new value defense under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(4) with new shipments of goods).

In re Valentine, 2009 BNH 025 (sustaining the chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claim of an exemption for a private disability insurance settlement under NH RSA 167:25; overruling the chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s amendment to increase her exemption for jewelry because the debtor did not act in bad faith).

Tucker v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (In re Tucker), 2009 BNH 024 (finding payment of the debtor’s student loan obligations to two student loan creditors would impose an undue hardship on her within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and declining to extend rationale of Nash v. Connecticut Student Loan Found. (In re Nash), 446 F.3d 188 (1st Cir. 2006), based on factual differences and evidentiary burdens).

In re McLaughlin and In re Shamrock Builders, LLC, and In re The Charles McLaughlin Family Limited Liability Partnership, 2009 BNH 023 (granting lender's motions for relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 because debtors' properties provide little equity such that the lender is not adequately protected; and denying Charles and Charletta McLaughlin's motion to avoid attachment under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) since debtors failed to show they were insolvent and attachment had no affect on the amount lender would receive under Chapter 7 liquidation).