Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Askenaizer (In re ZLGH Dev., Inc.), 2001 BNH 013 (distinguishing Bodwell Dev. Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (In re Bodwell Dev. Trust), 187 B.R. 63 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1995), and concluding that the general contractor and the debtor-developer in this case did not have a “whole or continuing” contract; determining pursuant to RSA 447:2 and 9 the extent and validity of the general contractor’s mechanic’s lien on lots in the debtor’s development and finding pursuant to RSA 447:12 that the mechanic’s lien had priority over the bank’s construction mortgage).
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 Camann, 2001 BNH 011 (amending prior memorandum opinion by clarifying the Court’s rationale for dismissing under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(3)), amending In re Camann, 2001 BNH 008 (dismissing sua sponte the debtor’s Chapter 11 case for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) because there was no bankruptcy purpose being served by the case which involved a dispute between a solvent debtor and his former spouse regarding the disposition of marital assets under a five year old final state court divorce decree).
Vaillancourt v. The Granite Group (In re Vaillancourt), 260 B.R. 66 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (holding that debtors may use the state wild card exemption under RSA 511:2(XVIII) to exempt real property and may “stack” the exemption on top of the state homestead exemption contained in RSA 480:1).
Marshall v. Kalantzis (In re Kalantzis), 2001 BNH 009 (finding that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof under sections 727(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(5), but denying the Debtor’s discharge under section 727(a)(4)(A) when the errors and omissions contained in the Debtor’s statement of financial affairs and schedules were numerous and consistent with each other, but inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial), 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).
In re Camann, 2001 BNH 008 (dismissing sua sponte the debtor’s Chapter 11 case for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) because there was no bankruptcy purpose being served by the case which involved a dispute between a solvent debtor and his former spouse regarding the disposition of marital assets under a five year old final state court divorce decree), amended by In re Camann, 2001 BNH 011 (clarifying the Court’s rationale for dismissing under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(3)).
Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Askenaizer (In re ZLGH Dev., Inc.), 2001 BNH 007 (finding that a general contractor holds a valid perfected mechanic’s lien attachment under NH RSA 447:10 to the extent that the general contractor has a valid mechanic’s lien even though the property description was not contained on the face of the writ but rather in an exhibit to the motion for ex parte attachment which was recorded with the writ at the registry of deeds).
Weeden v. Weeden (In re Weeden), 2001 BNH 006 (denying ex-spouse’s claim that Debtor’s obligation arising from divorce to pay one-half of home equity loan should be excepted from discharge pursuant to section 523(a)(5); also, denying Debtor’s request for attorney’s fees).
In re Bursey, 2001 BNH 005 (valuing claim of creditor following Court’s disposition of Debtor’s objection to proof of claim in In re Bursey, 2001 BNH 001).
Fanning v. Fanning (In re Fanning), 2001 BNH 004 (excepting from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) the debtor’s obligation to maintain life insurance for his former spouse’s benefit while alimony and property division awards remained unpaid and declining to except from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) the debtor’s obligation to pay his former spouse her interest in the debtor’s business as the obligation was not in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support but rather was a property settlement dischargeable in Chapter 13).
Steele v. Ocwen Fed. Bank (In re Steele), 258 B.R. 319 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2001) (granting creditor’s motion to dismiss claims for violation of federal and state fair debt collection statutes brought after the Debtor received his Chapter 13 discharge and his case was closed; claims were not core proceedings and did not fall within the Court’s related to jurisdiction).