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.

Genetti v. Brazil (In re Brazil), 2017 BNH 016 (finding that the plaintiff sustained her burden to establish that a debt owed to her arising from the debtor’s reckless performance and subsequent breach of a construction contract should be excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) as one arising from false pretenses, false representations, and actual fraud).

Martin v. Pelley (In re Pelley), 2017 BNH 014 (holding the debtor's obligation to repay the creditor for overpayment of child support for the unmarried couple's child was not a domestic support obligation within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A) and thus dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)).

In re Caraballo 2017 BNH 013 (finding that the the debtor's plan met the projected disposable income requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1) when the debtor used net monthly income from Schedules I and J to determine projected disposable income, rather than the disposable income number resulting from the means test calculation in Official Form 122C-2).

In re Furlong, 2017 BNH 012 (finding that the debtor’s homestead rights pursuant to N.H. RSA § 480:1 in mixed use property were established prior to a fire that destroyed his home and that his continued occupation of a cabin on the property, despite seasonal absences, entitled him to an exemption in that portion of the property he actually occupied as his home).

In re Franklin, 2017 BNH 011 (finding that the USDA’s misapplication of the Chapter 13 debtor’s mortgage payments over the life of his plan violated the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) and was in contempt of the confirmation order by failing to permit the debtor to cure his prepetition default and maintain regular payments postpetition, warranting an award to the debtor of actual damages in the amount of $5,320 and reasonable attorney’s fees).

DeWitt v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 2017 BNH 010 (finding that the claims of the plaintiffs, former clients of the debtor, the owner of a residential remodeling company, should not be excepted from the discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), false pretenses, false representations, and actual fraud, and 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury).

In re Hanish, LLC, 2017 BNH 009 (denying the Chapter 11 debtor’s motion to reconsider the Court’s order denying of approval of the debtor’s disclosure statement on the basis the plan improperly separately classified the debtor’s unsecured creditors, concluding that 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4) does not permit the separate classification of an unsecured creditor who accepts less favorable treatment than other unsecured creditors under the plan in order to obtain the acceptance of an impaired class).

In re Ladona, 2017 BNH 008 (denying the debtor's motion seeking sanctions from the IRS for an alleged violation of the discharge injunction, concluding that, in light of the debtor's failure to file his tax return timely, the tax debt was both entitled to priority treatment under 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8)(A)(i) and excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(B) and 1328(a)(2), such that interest, which was not provided for by the debtor's Chapter 13 plan, continued to accrue post-petition)

Todt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Todt), 567 B.R. 667 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2017) (finding the mortgagee and its servicer were not protected by 11 U.S.C. § 524(j) and in fact violated the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) by continuing to send the debtors (a) monthly statements demanding payment post-discharge, and (b) various other communications concerning escrow payments and hazard insurance post-foreclosure, and holding the mortgagee and its servicer jointly and severally liable for emotional distress damages of $13,000 and for attorney's fees and expenses of more than $30,000).

Ford v. Duggan (In re Duggan), 2017 BNH 006 (concluding that the Chapter 7 trustee sustained his burden to sell real estate free and clear of the interests of the co-owners pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §363(h) where the sale proceeds would pay all claims and yield a surplus to the debtor, each co-owner would receive approximately $88,000 on account of their interest, and the loss of the property due to a municipal tax taking appeared inevitable gien the co-oweners' inability to cure the substantial real estate tax arrearage; also holding that 11 U.S.C. §363(j) unequivocally requires the cost of the sale to be charged against to the gross sale proceeds notwithstanding the co-owners' objections to the sale)