Longchamps Elec., Inc. v. Rothenberg (In re Wrenn Assocs., Inc.), 2004 BNH 018 (concluding that two state lawsuits, asserting claims against the debtor, a project owner, and a property owner seeking damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and asserting a mechanic’s lien, were properly removed to the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U§.S.C. § 1452(a) as the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and concluding that there are insufficient equitable grounds to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b)).
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.
Desmond v. U.S. Asset Funding, LP (In re Desmond), 316 B.R. 593 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2004) (dissolving the injunctive relief concerning assets of non-debtor limited liability company, of which the Debtor is the sole member, because the Debtor treated the limited liability company as a separate entity not advising the Court of its actions or seeking any approval from this Court, further distinguishing the case from the reasoning of In re Albright, 291 B.R. 538 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2003); and concluding that the injunctive relief against the Debtor shall continue and that to the extent that the Rhode Island temporary restraining order extends to the Debtor, it violates the automatic stay; therefore, it is void).
Banknorth, N.A. v. Vrusho (In re Vrusho), 316 B.R. 589 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2004) (granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss abstaining from hearing the Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Court’s discretionary abstention power under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) because the proceeding involved only issues of state law, federal jurisdiction not available without the bankruptcy case, the adjudication of the Plaintiff’s claim would not benefit either the creditors or the estate, and granting the Plaintiff relief from the automatic stay to the extent necessary for the Plaintiff to pursue its claims in another forum).
In re Dicey, 312 B.R. 456 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2004) (finding that the de minimis dividend, the fact that the debt would be nondischargeable under a Chapter 7, the fact that the case is in substance a one creditor case, the fact that no prepetition creditors are receiving any substantial payment, the fact that the only distributions will be to administrative creditors and the timing of the bankruptcy filing all lead to the conclusion that the debtors’ chapter 13 plan was not filed in good faith.)
Gras v. Danube International, Ltd. (In re Global Environmental Solutions, Ltd.), 2004 BNH 013 (finding that (1) Plaintiff has met his burden in showing continuity of enterprise, as outlined Kleen Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services, Inc. v. Total Waste Management, Inc., 867 F.Supp.1136 (D.N.H. 1994), such that the Defendant should be responsible for the debts of its predecessor; (2) Plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the Debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value and that the transferee was an insider under N.H. RSA 545-A:4.; (3) Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of its superior rights as a lien creditor and evidence of post-petition transfer; (4) any damage will be allowed for the Plaintiff because the two individual Defendants did not mistreat the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff provided no evidence of damage).
D’Abre v. Dyke (In re Dyke), 2004 BNH 014 (denying the Defendant's motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 95(e) since the Defendant has failed to present newly discovered evidence and has failed to establish that the Court made a manifest error of law or fact in rendering its previous decision).
In re River Valley Fitness One, L.P., 2004 BNH 012 (sustaining the debtor’s objection to the portion of the creditor’s proof of claim seeking a late charge based upon the balance due after default and acceleration of the maturity of a promissory note.)
Ford v. Jackson (In re Jackson), 2004 BNH 011 (denying the debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) for making false oaths at the 341 meeting and in his statements and schedules by omitting any reference to his corporation and the nature and extent of its business but denying the trustee’s complaint with regard to his claims seeking to deny the debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(3)).
D’Abre v. Dyke (In re Dyke), 2004 BNH 010 (granting the Plaintiff's nondischageability complaint under § 523(a)(15) because the Debtor has the ability to indemnify the Plaintiff, and the discharge of the Debtor's obligation to the Plaintiff creates a hardship to the Plaintiff that outweighs the benefits of a discharge to the Debtor).
In re Tyler, 2004 BNH 009 (sustaining chapter 7 trustee’s objection to debtor’s claim of exemption of a variable appreciable life insurance policy under RSA 511:2(XIX) as a retirement plan).