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)).
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.
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).
Sardone v. Morrissette (In re Morrissette), 2001 BNH 019 (judgment in favor of Debtor’s ex-spouse on claim to except obligation arising out of divorce decree from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C.§ 523(a)(15)).
Brown v. Timlake (In re Timlake), 2001 BNH 017 (denying a complaint objecting to discharge because the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof under sections 523(a)(4), 523(a)(6), 727(a)(2), and 727(a)(4)(A), and distinguishing the result under section 727(a)(4) from the decision in Marshall v. Kalantzis (In re Kalantzis), 2001 BNH 009).
Schalebaum v. Town of Wolfeboro (In re Schalebaum), 273 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (denying Debtor’s motion to avoid lien that allegedly impaired homestead exemption pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) upon finding that homestead exemption did not attach to proceeds of voluntary sale of homestead; finding that town’s judicial attachment on homestead property did not attach to the proceeds of the voluntary sale of the property; and finding that “wildcard exemption” in RSA 511:2(XVIII) may be utilized to exempt cash proceeds from sale of property).