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 Vaughn, 276 B.R. 323 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2002) (granting Trustee's motion and dismissing Debtor's Chapter 13 case because Debtor's unsecured debts exceed the statutory limit set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 109(e)).

Smith v. Hall, Morse, Anderson, Miller & Spinella (In re Ottoman's, Inc.), 2002 BNH 011 (holding that, for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 549, a check delivered pre-petition, but honored post-petition, is governed by the date of honor rule, rendering the check payment avoidable as a post-petition transfer of estate assets) (recon. denied 4/29/02).

John Hancock Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Sloane (In re Sloane), 2002 BNH 010 (granting defendant's motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) with respect to plaintiff's attempt to pierce the veil of the defendant's corporation, granting defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff's claim for conversion under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), and denying the defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff's claim for misrepresentation under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A)).

JAAJ Realty v. Gaudette (In re Gaudette), 2002 BNH 009 (finding that Plaintiff had not met its burden of proof with respect to complaint seeking the denial of the Debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) & (B), (3), (4)(A) & (B) and (5)).

In re Gaudette, 2002 BNH 008 (holding that Movant lacks standing to pursue a claim of exemption on behalf of the Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(I) and sustaining Trustee's objection to Debtor's claimed exemption because the OFS Pension Plan and Trust is not exempt under N.H. RSA § 512:21(V)).

Smith v. WinBook Computer Corp. (In re Blue Fin Technologies, Inc.), 2002 BNH 007 (granting defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as made applicable to the Bankruptcy Code by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012, with regards to Counts III and VI because the complaint failed to state a cause of action that could be granted relief under Ohio law, but denying the defendant's motion to dismiss with regards to Counts I, II, IV, and V).

Systolic Networks, Inc. v. Bizfon, Inc. (In re Bizfon, Inc.), 2002 BNH 006 (denying plaintiff's motion to remand a removed case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) because the only remaining issues under the complaint involved claims resolution issues and as such constituted a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (C) and no basis existed to abstain from hearing the matter or to remand it for equitable reasons).

Sperry Concrete, Inc. v. Voisine (In re Voisine), 2002 BNH 005 (excepting a debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because the debtor's false statements regarding the status of his mortgage caused damage to the debtor's contractor in that the contractor deferred taking collection action which wuold have resulted in its receiving payment for services).

In re Spike Broadband Systems, Inc., 2002 BNH 004 (discussing modifications to proposed order granting motion to sell substantially all of the debtor's assets, including patents and other technology).

Bova v. St. Vincent De Paul Corp. (In re Bova), 272 BR 49 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2002) (avoiding Defendant's attachment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547).

Pages