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).
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.
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).
Belanger v. Fortier (In re Fortier), 2001 BNH 015 (judgment in favor of Debtor’s ex-spouse on claim to except indemnification agreement from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)).
Schultz v. AMEJRE, LLC (In re Schultz), 2001 BNH 014 (granting seller’s and lender’s motions for partial summary judgment because (1) it was unnecessary for the seller to execute and deliver a deed to the manufactured housing unit pursuant to RSA 477:44 to transfer title of the unit to the debtors because the unit was located on the debtors’ realty not on the realty of another; (2) in accordance with the terms of its mortgage, the lender’s security interest in the unit attached and was perfected at the time the unit was affixed to the land and the lender’s lien in the manufactured home continued and was in effect at the time the debtors filed their petition; and (3) the seller did not violate 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4) or (a)(5) by executing and delivering postpetition a deed that did not create, perfect, or enforce the lender’s lien).
Denton v. Girard (In re Girard), 2001 BNH 012 (denying the plaintiff’s objection to discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A) because she had failed to meet her burden of proof and denying the denying the plaintiff’s objection to discharge under section 523(a)(15) with regards to her claim relating to liens because she had failed to meet her burden of proof, but denying the debtor’s discharge under section 523(a)(15) with respect to the plaintiff’s indemnification claim).