Rizzo v. Mindes (In re Mindes), 412 B.R. 8 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (denying complaint because no false representation was made under section 523(a)(2)(A) when at the time of making the statement the defendant intended to perform the future action but later changes his mind, or intervening events cause him to act otherwise).
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.
Rifken v. CapitalSource Finance, LLC (In re Felt Mfg. Co., Inc.), 402 B.R. 502 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (denying in part defendant’s motion under FRCP 12(b)(6) to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c) to surcharge proceeds from defendant’s collateral for services rendered by professionals for the debtor and unsecured creditors’ committee because the complaint set forth a plausible basis for relief and affirmative defenses of standing, waiver, and res judicata were not applicable, and granting the motion in part to the extent that it sought to surcharge expenses incurred after the date the debtor had waived such claims).
Notinger v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Prescott), 2009 BNH 009 (granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on Count I which precludes avoidance of a mortgage lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(2), because a mortgage containing an additional incomplete description is valid and provides constructive notice of the property encumbered; granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Count II to avoid an attachment pursuant to § 549, because the action to obtain the attachment was outside the scope of the relief granted in the Court's order; and denying summary judgment on the remaining counts brought pursuant to §§ 524 and 510).
In re Plourde, 402 B.R. 488 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (finding that upon bifurcation of a claim, a debtor that chooses to modify the terms of the secured portion of the allowed claim by changing the payments of principal and interest pursuant to § 1325(a)(5) is required by § 1322(d) to pay the secured portion of the allowed claim in full during the life of the plan).
In re MTM Realty Trust, 2009 BNH 008 (holding that debtor’s property was single asset real estate under 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B) because debtor’s property was commercial, the property generated all of the debtor’s gross income, and debtor had no other substantial business activities other than operating its real property since it only collected rent from tenants and paid normal expenses associated with owning commercial real estate).
Schatz v. Imperial Capital Bank (In re Schatz), 402 B.R. 482 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and denying the Defendant's summary judgment motion; finding that a creditor's mortgage recorded within the ninety day period preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition is avoidable even though the mortgage took effect almost two years before the filing, because under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) a transfer is deemed made on the date of perfection if the transfer is perfected more than thirty days after it took effect).
Cyr Lumber Co., Inc. v. Raineri (In re Raineri), 2009 BNH 005 (excepting the debtor’s obligation to the creditor on a guaranteed store credit line under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) as a debt incurred through false pretenses).
Askenaizer v. Wyatt: (In re BeaconVision Incorporated), 2009 BNH 004 (granting three counts for breach of contract, conversion, and avoidance pursuant 11 U.S.C. §§ 548 and 550 against a lender relating to $2 million loan agreement; and denying the remaining counts for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, consumer fraud, and state fraudulent transfer as to the remaining defendants in an adversary proceeding brought by the chapter 7 trustee and two stockholders of the debtor against a lender, escrow agent, and related third parties).
McAdam v. State of New Hampshire (In re McAdam), 402 B.R. 473 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (dismissing the debtor's complaint for violation of the discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) brought against the state under FRCP 12(b)(6) and FRBP 7012(b)(6) because the state's collection activities for past-due employment taxes did not violate the discharge injunction as they were nondischargeble debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1) and suits to determine nondischargeability fall outside the scope of the discharge injunction).
Poliquin v. Cox (In re Cox), 2009 BNH 002 (denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment relating to the plaintiff's complaint brought under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4) because there are genuine issues of fact regarding whether the defendants intentionally made a false oath in their bankruptcy schedules as to the value of their business inventory and whether the defendants fraudulently transferred property of the estate to their newly formed business entity after the petition date).