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 ‌Burrows, 2018 BNH 010 (overruling the trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claim of homestead exemption under NH RSA 480:1 in debtor’s abutting parcel of land as the debtor actually used the adjoining lot in order to enjoy his home).

In re Vertullo, 2018 BNH 009 (holding that chapter 13 debtors may cure defaults under a mortgage and maintain payments pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(1), where a mortgagee has conducted a foreclosure auction prepetition but has failed to complete the foreclosure sale by recording a deed before the debtor files chapter 13 bankruptcy, continuing to follow Judge Deasy’s decision in In re Beeman, 235 B.R. 519 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999), and declining to follow the BAP’s decision in TD Bank, N.A. v. LaPointe (In re LaPointe), 505 B.R. 589 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2014)).

Browne v. Lombard (In re Lombard), 2018 BNH 008 (after a trial on the merits on the plaintiff's 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) claims determining that (1) claim preclusion barred the relitigation of certain aspects of the claims, (2) that the plaintiff's claims lacked merit on substantive grounds, and (3) that the plaintiff's post-trial motion to conform the pleadings to the evidence presented at trial had to be denied because the defendant had not implicitly consented to the litigation of an unpleaded claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b)(2)).

Browne v. Lombard (In re Lombard), 2018 BNH 007 (finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(c) to maintain their claims to deny the debtor's discharge per 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), and, alternatively, finding the § 727(a)(4)(A) claims were without merit).

Shelzi v. Foistner (In re Foistner), 2018 BNH 006 (granting in part and denying in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to FRBP 12(b)(6), dismissing the plaintiff’s counts under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4) for failure to state a claim where plaintiff merely alleged that the defendant obtained money from her by use of a materially false statement of financial condition without any detail of what the statement was or how it was false, and did not allege a basis for technical trust sufficient to establish that the defendant, as manager of a limited liability company, was acting in a fiduciary capacity with respect to the members of the limited liability company).

In re Foistner, 2018 BNH 005 (denying the debtor’s motion to vacate the Court’s order overruling his objection to the appearance of creditor’s counsel pursuant to FRBP 60(b)(3) as being wholly without merit and finding that an order to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions pursuant to FRBP 9011 against the debtor and/or the debtor’s counsel was warranted).

Iudice v. Murphy (In re Murphy), 2018 BNH 004 (denying the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to FRCP 12(c) with respect to her claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) and denying the debtor/defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the plaintiff’s claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) as the parties did not meet the requirements under Massachusetts law for applying issue preclusion to the state court judgment that established the debt owed by the debtor/defendant to the plaintiff for unjust enrichment and violation of Massachusetts' Chapter 93A).

Martin v. Pelley (In re Pelley), 2018 BNH 003 (awarding actual damages to the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) for violation of the automatic stay by the creditor/co-parent's filing motions in a pending state court parenting proceeding seeking (a) the payment of attorney’s fees, and (b) the freezing of the debtor’s anticipated prepetition tax refund so that its proceeds could be used to repay the creditor's prepetition overpayment of child support).

Hatton v. TD Bank, N.A (In re Hatton), 2018 BNH 002 (granting the bank’s motion under FRBP 12(b)(6) seeking to dismiss the debtor’s eight-count complaint as most of the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations under New Hampshire and federal law—specifically, RSA 508:4(I), 12 U.S.C. § 2614, and 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)—and several of the claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted—specifically, those seeking damages for violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2609, promissory estoppel, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; also finding the extension of statutes of limitations provision in 11 U.S.C. § 108(a) inapplicable).

In re Foistner, 2018 BNH 001 (allowing, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), a creditor to retract a mistaken withdrawal of a timely filed motion to extend the deadline to object to discharge and dischargeability of certain debts where doing so will not prejudice the debtor).