Smith v. Pollack (In re Pollack), 2016 BNH 002 (denying the chapter 7 trustee’s claims that the debtor’s transfer of sale proceeds was fraudulent under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1), 548(a)(1)(B) and (e)(1), or RSA 545-A:4(I)(b) as the trustee failed to meet his burden of proof).
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.
In re Williams, 2016 BNH 001 (overruling the debtor’s objection to his former wife’s claim because the debtor’s obligation under the couple’s divorce decree to pay her $20,000 so that she could buy a replacement vehicle was a “domestic support obligation” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A), which must be paid in full in the debtor’s chapter 13 plan as required by the provisions of 11 U.S.C. §§ 507(a)(1)) and 1322(a)(2)).
Gordon v. White (In re Morgenstern), 2015 BNH 014 (determining that property of revocable trust, of which debtor was settlor and a beneficiary, was property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), that creditor's post-petition acceptance and recording of deed violated the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C § 362(a), and that deed was void; also determining that chapter 7 trustee was not an "individual" who could recover damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k); requiring creditor who violated the automatic stay to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees of chapter 7 trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) as a contempt sanction).
In re Weiner, 2015 BNH 013 (sustaining creditors' objections to the homestead exemption of the debtor and non-debtor spouse pursuant to NH RSA 480:1; the debtor and spouse had abandoned the property in question by moving to Costa Rica with no evidence of an intent to return).
In re Tempnology, LLC, 2015 BNH 012 (approving a pre-confirmation sale of substantially all of the chapter 11 debtor’s assets pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b) finding that the proposed sale was not a de facto plan, creditors were afforded protections consistent with the statutory safeguards of the chapter 11 confirmation process, there was a valid business reason for the proposed sale outside the confirmation process, and the proposed sale made good sense in the overall context of the reorganization)
In re Tempnology, LLC, 2015 BNH 011 (determining that exclusive distribution rights and rights to use the debtor's trademarks under a pre-petition co-marketing and distribution agreement that also granted a non-exclusive license to the debtor's intellectual property were not rights to intellectual property that the licensee could retain post-rejection pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(1)(B)).
In re Taal, 2015 BNH 010 (sustaining in part debtor's objection to mortgagee's proof of claim and notice of post-petition fees and costs on the basis that certain attorney's fees were not recoverable under the relevant note, mortgage, and state law, which 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) and (e) made applicable to the bankruptcy proceeding; awarding the debtor attorney's fees and disallowing certain attorney's fees to the mortgagee based on New Hampshire R.S.A. 361-C:2).
In re Ashley, 539 B.R. 198 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2015) (imposing an inherent power, non-contempt, punitive sanction against the debtors’ car lender for failure to comply with the terms of the debtors’ chapter 13 plan and the court’s confirmation order, which together bound lender to release its lien and deliver the certificate of title upon full payment of lender’s secured claim, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a)).
In re GT Advanced Techs., Inc. Bk. No. 14-11916-HJB (Bankr. D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2015) (denying the debtors' motion seeking approval of a key employee incentive plan, the KEIP, and key employee retention plan, the KERP, as the KEIP is primarily designed to be retentive and not incentive in nature and fails to meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 503(c)(1) and the KERP, as currently formulated, is not justified under the facts and circumstances of this case and therefore does not meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 503(c)(3)).
Gordon v. Millette (In re Millette), 539 B.R. 396 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2015) (granting motion for summary judgment of plaintiff chapter 7 trustee on complaint for turnover, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542(a), of annual payments due post-petition that debtor was receiving from her ex-spouse under a divorce decree, after determining that such payments were property of the bankruptcy estate).