In re Hand, 323 B.R. 14 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2005) (Dismissing case under 707(b) after applying the totality of the circumstances test in First USA v. Lamanna (In re Lamanna), 153 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1988).
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.
In re Myers, 323 B.R. 11 (Bankr D.N.H. 2005) (Over-ruling objection to homestead exemption in a duplex where the Debtors and a parent were living together as a family unit and no portion of the Property was used for the generation of rental income).
In re Desmond, 2005 BNH 009, 2005 WL 1244842 (denying the debtor’s motion to transfer venue of the Debtor’s affiliate Delaware LLC’s bankruptcy from Rhode Island to New Hampshire under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) finding that (1) the convenience of the parties and interest of justice supports the LLC’s stay in Rhode Island; (2) under Delaware law, the LLC is not dissolved upon the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing, rather the LLC’s existence shall continue upon cancellation of its certificate of formation; and (3) the Debtor is estopped from taking the position that the LLC dissolved upon the filing of his bankruptcy since he continued to do business on behalf of the LLC).
Ready Productions, Inc. v. Jarvis (In re Jarvis), 2005 BNH 006 (granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying Debtor’s cross-motion for summary judgment, because under either the Countryman (material breach) test or the functional analysis test, the presence of a passive non-disparagement clause in a prepetition settlement agreement where substantial performance had occurred, did not render the agreement executory and subject to rejection under 11 U.S.C. § 365).
In re Robotic Vision Systems, Inc., 322 B.R. 502 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2005) (determining that a bona fide dispute under 363(f) depends on case-by-case consideration of (i) procedural posture (ii) need to expedite the sale and (iii) nature of basis for determining dispute exists. Pleading party must articulate an objective basis sufficient under the facts for court to determine that a bona fide dispute exists.)
Hosely v. Bly (In re Bly), 2005 BNH 004 (ex-wife's complaint seeking an exception to discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(15) is granted because the Debtor has the ability to pay the debt, which he was obliged to pay pursuant to the divorce decree, and his failure to pay created a burden on the Plaintiff that should not have occurred).
Banknorth, N.A. v. Vrusho (In re Vrusho), 321 B.R. 607 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2005) ((1) granting the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because the Plaintiff's error of citing the wrong section number is not fatal, and the Defendant failed to answer interrogatories and to produce documents necessary for trial of the Plaintiff's complaint adopting the reasoning of In re Bartlett, 162 B.R. 73 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1993); (2) denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that res judicata will not be invoked in a complaint for an exception to discharge; and (3)awarding the Plaintiff $2,500 as reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining discovery pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
Clarkeies Market, L.L.C. v. Associated Grocers of New England, Inc. (In re Clarkeies Market, L.L.C.), 322 B.R. 487 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2005) (denying the first eight counts of the Plaintiff's complaint and deferring count IX to Judge Deasy, who is presiding over the case in chief, finding that (1) no agency and no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties; (2) the transaction at issue did not violate the provisions of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act; (3) the Defendant did not breach any covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to its contractual arrangement entered into with the Plaintiff; (4) an agency brokerage relationship did not exist; (5) there is no evidence that the information provided by the Defendant was not accurate, and the Plaintiff's reliance on the information could not be justified; (6) the Defendant was not negligent in providing due diligence; (7) there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant asserted any dominion or control over the Plaintiff other than a business relationship; (8) the request for a determination of the amount, validity and priority of the Defendant's lien is better suited to be determined in the claims allowance process in the Plaintiff's Chapter 11 proceeding).
Lyons Hollis Assocs., Inc. v. New Tech Partners, Inc. (In re New Technology Partners, Inc.), 2005 BNH 001 (denying motion to partially vacate arbitrator’s award under the standard set forth in Advest, Inc. v. McCarthy, 914 F.2D 6 (1st Cir. 1985), because the Movant failed to show the award was “in manifest disregard of the law”).
In re Robotic Visions Systems, Inc., 2004 BNH 029 (limiting the chapter 11 debtors request for a second extension of time to file schedules because the debtors failed to establish “cause” pursuant to FRBP 1007(c)).