Clarkeies Market, L.L.C. v. Associated Grocers of New England, Inc. (In re Clarkeies Market, L.L.C.), 2004 BNH 008 (sustaining in part and denying in part the debtor’s objection to the creditor’s proof of claim on the grounds that the creditor disposed of collateral at one location in a commercially reasonable manner and was entitled to a deficiency pursuant to RSA 382-A:9-504, but was not entitled to a deficiency claim for a second location when it had not disposed of any collateral and continued to operate the location more than three years after obtaining relief from the automatic stay either because (1) it retained the collateral in full satisfaction of the debtor’s obligations to it under the doctrine of implied strict foreclosure under RSA 382-A:9-505, or (2) failed to dispose of the collateral in a commercially reasonable manner as required by RSA 382-A:9-504).
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.
Weaver v. Weston (In re Weston), 307 B.R. 340 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2004) (Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under § 523(a)(4) is granted in part and denied in part, finding that: (1) all elements of collateral estoppel are met to the extent that the Defendant was acting in a fiduciary capacity because ERISA creates fiduciary duties sufficient to create a technical trust required under § 523(a)(4) and that collateral estoppel also applies to pro se litigants; and (2) mere negligence is not sufficient to constitute a defalcation under the standard of In re Baylis, 313 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2002)).
Clarkeies Market, L.L.C. v. Estate of Kelley (In re Clarkeies Market, L.L.C.), 2004 BNH 006 (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the debtor’s adversary proceeding on statute of limitations grounds because the debtor’s objections to the defendants’ claims in the main case were sufficient to provide the defendants with notice of the debtor’s claims and to overcome any procedural infirmities, given FRBP 3007 which provides that if an objection to claim is joined with a demand for relief of a kind specified in FRBP 7001, it becomes an adversary proceeding).
Amsol, Inc. v. Jaworski (In re Jaworski), 2004 BNH 005 (excepting from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) the creditor’s claim arising out of a transfer of money for the drilling of oil wells, which claim was based on a settlement that also provided for payment of attorney’s fees, and denying the creditor’s claims of non-dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6)).
Dubois v. Snow (In re Dubois), 2004 BNH 004 (holding that an attorney’s lien under NH RSA 311:13 is a statutory lien that may not be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f))
LaChance v. Carne (In re Carne), 2004 BNH 003 (denying the Plaintiff's nondischargeability complaint because the Plaintiff did not meet its burden of proof under section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6)).
UmbrellaBank v. Michel (In re Michel), 304 B.R. 33 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2004) (denying UmbrellaBank’s nondischargeability complaints because Defendant lacks a requisite “scienter” under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A); Plaintiff did not create an agency relationship with Defendant in administering a loan secured by stock as required by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4); the transaction in question did not fit the elements of embezzlement; Plaintiff’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect its collateral prevents application of the willful and malicious exception under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6); and Plaintiff failed to prove Defendant’s intention to cause the harm to Plaintiff or property of Plaintiff).
In re Marsico, 2004 BNH 001 (adopting the standard of bad faith as elucidated in In re Keach, 243 B.R. 851 (B.A.P. 1st Cir.) and In re Cabal, 285 B.R. 563 (B.A.P. 1st Cir.) in dismissing the debtor’s case as a bad faith filing under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a)
In re Micro-Precision Technologies, Inc., 303 B.R. 238 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2003) (denying the United States Small Business Administration’s (the “SBA’s”) Motion for Disallowance of H.F. Huang’s Claim No. 4 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) or, in the Alternative, for Recharacterization of the Huang Claim as a Junior Preferred Equity Interest pursuant to § 105, overruling in part and sustaining in part the Debtor’s Objection to the SBA’s Claim No. 3, and directing the SBA to file an amended proof of claim clarifying the amount it is owed).
Soto v. Lanoue (In re Soto), 302 B.R. 757 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2003) (denying the Debtor’s request for an award of damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), finding that although the Defendant’s action of going to the police department to get the trailer back was taken in violation of the automatic stay, the Debtor failed to prove that the action was willful because the Defendant did not have notice of the stay when he took the action.