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).
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.
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).
Balles v. Sturgill (In re Sturgill), 2008 BNH 013 (granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint to except her claim from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to allege that the Defendants had the intent to deceive the Plaintiff required under section 523(a)(2)(A) and for failure to allege that the Defendants acted in a fiduciary capacity within the meaning of section 523(a)(4); and rejecting the Plaintiff’s argument that the Court expand the existing definition of “fiduciary” under section 523(a)(4)).
In re Cohen, 2008 BNH 012 (finding that the creditor’s secured claim is oversecured under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b) and rejecting the debtor’s equitable subrogation argument because the debtor lacks standing to raise the issue and the alleged subrogee did not pay a debt to the creditor on behalf of the debtor).
In re Pittsfield, 393 B.R. 271 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (granting the United States Trustee’s motion to dismiss the debtor’s chapter 11 case pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 1112(b) because there is “cause” to dismiss or convert the case to a chapter 7 case based on the debtor’s failure to pay post/petition taxes, failure to pay insurance premiums, failure to timely file monthly operating reports, and mounting administrative debt, and there are no contravening unusual circumstances that weigh against dismissal; and finding that dismissal rather than conversion is in the best interests of the creditors and the estate because trade creditors may still want to deal with the debtor and a chapter 7 trustee will not benefit the creditors or the estate but result in additional administrative expenses).
In re Lakeshore Construction Company of Wolfboro, Inc. 390 B.R. 751 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (finding that a creditor with a claim under the terms of an unexpired lease of personal property is entitled to an administrative expense claim under § 365(d)(5) for all expenses which it can show arose after the sixtieth day post-petition but prior to some reasonable time after said creditor obtains relief from the automatic stay to the extent permitted under the underlying lease, and that such an administrative expense must be treated equally and rateably with all other administrative expense claims under § 503(b)(1)).
In re Perrotta, 390 B.R. 26 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (concluding that 11 U.S.C. § 704(b)(2) does not set forth a requirement that the United States Trustee file a statement of presumed abuse prior to filing a motion to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(1) or (b)(3), where the United States Trustee is not basing such a motion on the presumption of abuse and, for that reason, ruling that the deadline for filing such a motion to dismiss is not the thirty-day deadline set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 704(b)(2) but rather the sixty-day deadline set forth in Interim Bankruptcy Rule 1017(e)).
In re Martin, 413 B.R. 12 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (sustaining the debtor’s objection to a creditor’s proof of claim on the grounds that the debtor is not personally liable for the subject claim because the claim arose in connection with a contract between the creditor and the debtor’s corporation, and the creditor failed to provide sufficient evidence for the Court to pierce the corporate veil under New Hampshire law).
In re Chase, 388 B.R. 462 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2008) (holding that a creditor’s secured lien, created by the New Hampshire Supreme Court under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, may be avoided and treated as a general unsecured claim by a Debtor standing in the shoes of a hypothetical lien creditor under § 544(a)(1) because the state court order creating the lien was never recorded as required by NH RSA 477:3-a and the recorded, but discharged, mortgage to which the creditor was equitably subrogated was insufficient to place a bona fide purchaser on inquiry notice as required by Amoskeag Bank v. Chagnon, 133 N.H. 11 (1990)).