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).
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.
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).
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).