Smith v. MAK Investments, LLC (In re Drew), 2006 BNH 029 (voiding a transfer of a residence under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1) due to lack of reasonably equivalent value; denying the defendant a lien under 11 U.S.C. § 548(c) due to defendant’s lack of good faith; and denying recovery under NH RSA 358-A, the Consumer Protection Act, because the trustee did not meet his burden under the Barrows “rascality” test).
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.
Savoy v. Savoy (In re Savoy), 2006 BNH 028 (denying a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) seeking to except from discharge the debtor’s obligation to pay $10,000.00 toward his former wife’s legal fees arising out of their divorce as the former wife did not meet her burden of establishing that the obligation was actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support).
In re Krause, 357 B.R. 7 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2006) (dismissing the debtors’ Chapter 7 case because, in light of the debtors’ earnings and expenses, granting Chapter 7 relief would constitute a substantial abuse of the Bankruptcy Code).
In re Harris, 357 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2006) (denying, based on Marrama, Chapter 7 debtor’s § 727(a) motion to convert to Chapter 13 because of debtor’s bad faith).
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Foss (In re Felt Mfg. Co. Inc.), 2006 BNH 025 (denying a motion for preliminary injunction as to one codefendant for failure to establish a likelihood of success on any claim for which an injunction may be granted; granting in part a preliminary injunction as to another codefendant; granting separate prejudgment attachments against each defendant).
In re Evarts, 2006 BNH 024 (overruling a creditor’s objection to the debtors’ claim of homestead exemption under NH RSA 480:1 because any rental use of a secondary building on the debtors’ property and any use of open land by a farmer were de minimis and for the purpose of maintaining the homestead property).
In re Robotic Sys., Inc., 343 B.R. 393 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2006) (converting a creditor’s objections to final fee applications, which raised issues of malpractice and fraud by chapter 11 professionals in cases converted to chapter 7, into adversary proceedings in accordance with FRBP 3007 and the First Circuit’s decision in Iannochino v. Rodolakis (In re Iannochino), 242 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2001)).
In re Gaudette, 2006 BNH 022 (modifying fee arrangement and awarding trustee's counsel twenty/five percent of funds held in escrow as well as a contingency fee for any further awards in the R&R Associates of Hampton case, and ordering trustee to release the escrowed funds).
In re Reardon, 2006 BNH 021 (denying a motion to approve a reaffirmation agreement under 11 U.S.C. § 524 where the reaffirmation agreement (1) failed to clearly identify the creditor who was entering into the reaffirmation agreement and the creditor’s address, and (2) failed to have attached to it the evidence required by AO 4008-1(b)(2) that would establish that the creditor entering into the reaffirmation agreement was in fact the holder of a claim against the debtor and possessed a security interest in the collateral described in the reaffirmation agreement).
Desmond v. ASR Acquisition Corp. (In re Desmond) AND Robert Wolfe Assocs., P.C. v. Desmond (In re Desmond), 2006 BNH 020 (granting the Chapter 7 trustee’s motion to compromise with defendant and settle adversary proceeding and granting the trustee’s motion to abandon real and personal property in which the defendant holds a security interest).