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 Handy, 2009 BNH 001 (overruling the debtor's objection to the mortgagee's claim because the mortgagee properly applied the debtor's payments to her escrow deficit and the attorney fees and costs included in the claim were reasonable, where the debtor defaulted and the mortgagee had an express right to commence collection procedures pursuant to their repayment agreement).

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).

Smith v. George (In re RCK Modular Homes Systems, Inc.), 402 B.R. 463 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (granting in part the motion for summary judgment brought by the trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1) and N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 545-A:4(I) because the undisputed facts established that the debtor made fraudulent transfers to the defendant subject to avoidance pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550(a); and denying in part the same motion for summary judgment because there are material issues of whether the debtor made the remaining transfers fraudulently).

In re Michaud, 399 B.R. 365 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (sustaining the chapter 13 trustee’s objections to the debtors’ plans under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) as the debtors were not using all of their projected disposable income to fund their plans because the debtors over withhold their federal income tax as evidenced by their receipt of large federal income tax refunds last year and concluding that debtors must contribute each year for the duration of their plan their income tax refunds in an amount to be determined at confirmation based upon the facts and circumstances of a particular debtor’s case).

In re Porter, 399 B.R. 113 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (denying approval of reaffirmation agreement that included creditor’s attorney’s fees after determining the agreed upon attorneys’ fees were unreasonable because the attorney’s activities were administrative in nature and did not require specialized legal knowledge or training).

In re Whispering Pines Estate, Inc., 2008 BNH 016 (denying confirmation for failure to satisfy the feasibility requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(11) because there is no reasonable likelihood that the debtor will obtain the financing contemplated in the plan and even assuming that such financing is secured, the plan is underfunded).

In re Plourde, 397 B.R. 207 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (holding that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001 does not alter the burden of proof in claims allowance procedure but instead provides an evidentiary benefit (i.e. the claim constituting prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim) for creditors that fully comply with the rule; holding that a creditor who fails to obtain evidentiary benefit of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f) must prove the existence and amount of the claim, and ownership of the claim; sustaining and sustaining in part a chapter 7 trustee's objections to two proofs of claim filed by credit card creditors whose proofs of claim did not satisfy Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001).

Bogdanov v. Laflamme (In re Laflamme), 397 B.R. 194 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (holding that individual debtor's interest in commissions under real estate contracts pending on the petition date were property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) and subject to turnover under 11 U.S.C. § 542, but that the debtor was not required to turnover commissions that were no longer in debtor's possession or control on the date of conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 to the extent that the debtor had used the commissions received to pay ordinary and necessary living expenses during the chapter 13 proceeding under an implicit right to use chapter 13 estate property under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1303 and 1306(b), but declining to adopt a bright-line rule for when a chapter 13 debtor may use estate property prior to confirmation of a plan or conversion).

Newfound Lake Marina, Inc. v. Sumac Corp.: (In re Newfound Lake Marina, Inc.), 2008 BNH 015 (finding that the state court action was properly removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) because the Court has jurisdiction over the removed action, as it is a non-core proceeding related to the Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy case, and remanding the removed action to the state court on equitable grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b)).

United States Trustee v. Marcelle: (In re Marcelle), 2008 BNH 014 (denying thedebtor a chapter 7 discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5) for failure to maintain adequate financial records, failure to satisfactorily explain his deficiency of assets, and making several false oaths in his bankruptcy schedules).