In re Ferman, 2001 BNH 028 (determining value of debtor’s seasonal lake front real estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) in the context of cramming down a secured creditor’s claim in Chapter 13 under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322(b)(2) and 1325(a)(5)).
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.
Balzotti v. RAD Invs., LLC (In re Shepherds Hill Dev. Co., LLC), 263 B.R. 673 (denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), on the grounds that the Debtor was not a third-party beneficiary to a contract between non-debtor parties and finding that even if the Debtor was a third-party beneficiary to the contract, the Court would still not have jurisdiction over the matter).
In re Brewer, 2001 BNH 027 [Also: In re Chamberlain; In re Gaudette — cases consolidated for the purpose of hearing on this issue only.] (finding petition preparer’s request for compensation excessive and requiring excess fees collected disgorged to Chapter 7 Trustee).
Balzotti v. RAD Invs., LLC (In re Shepherds Hill Dev. Co., LLC), 263 B.R. 673 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (vacating the entry of default and dismissing an adversary proceeding concerning the alleged breach of a post-petition contract between non-debtor parties where the proceeds of the adversary proceeding had been assigned to the Chapter 11 trustee and were used to partially fund a confirmed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization because the Court did not have “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157), vacated, 273 B.R. 327 (D.N.H. 2002) (vacating decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and holding that an assignment of a portion of the net proceeds from an adversary proceeding to the Chapter 7 trustee gave the estate a sufficient stake in the outcome to bring the claims within the bankruptcy court’s “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1)).
MacMillan v. Toy (In re Toy), 2001 BNH 024 (denying a complaint objecting to discharge pursuant to section 523(a)(2) on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof with regards to fraudulent intent).
In re Kaber Imaging, Inc., 262 B.R. 187 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (denying Debtor’s former chief financial officer’s motion to recover unpaid wages as an administrative expense pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A), finding that there was no benefit to the estate warranting the award).
Marshall v. Kalantzis (In re Kalantzis), 2001 BNH 020 (denying the debtor’s motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), as made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023, on the grounds that the pleadings had been amended pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7015(b) and on the grounds that the Court had not made an error of fact in denying the debtor’s discharge under section 727(a)(4)), aff’d, Kalantzis v. Marshall (In re Kalantzis), BAP No. NH 01-033 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Nov. 14, 2001) (summarily affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision which gave “careful attention” to the Debtor’s arguments and “thoughtful reasons” for the court’s rulings, findings, and conclusions).
Martineau v. Pratt (In re Pratt), 2001 BNH 022 (treating motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012(b) and finding that all elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied so that summary judgment in favor of judgment creditor was appropriate on complaint to except judgment debt from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4)).
D’Agnese v. Cotsibas (In re Cotsibas), 262 B.R. 182 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (granting motion for summary judgment by Chapter 11 Trustee in case of Cotsibas Agency, Inc., Bk. No. 98-14266-MWV, on claim seeking to deny the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(6)(A) for refusal to comply with the Court’s discovery orders; all other counts were dismissed as moot).
Bustead v. Wright (In re Wright), 2001 BNH 018 (granting Debtor’s motion for summary judgment on creditor’s claim to except judgment debt from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) where default judgment debt was based entirely upon a finding of negligence and recklessness, thus precluding a finding that the debt arose from willful and malicious conduct).