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 Smith, 2000 BNH 028 (granting motion for reconsideration of valuation of real estate upon new evidence; denying motion to subordinate lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 364(d), ruling that value of property should not be reduced by hypothetical sales costs and that existing lien holder was not adequately protected; and denying confirmation of plan, but giving Debtor opportunity to amend plan).

Chapman v. Tracey (In re Tracey), 250 B.R 468 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2000) (rejecting res judicata theory in dischargeability action and finding collateral estoppel not applicable as necessary elements of section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) counts were not present in state court judgment and state court findings forming elements of section 523(a)(4) claim were not essential to the judgment). 

In re Page, 250 B.R. 465 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2000) (pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 348(f), trustee bound by uncontested value attributed to real estate in confirmed Chapter 13 plan after case converted to Chapter 7).

In re Tsoupas, 250 B.R. 466 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2000) (where Debtor resided in one apartment in multi-family dwelling of which he was part owner, homestead exemption only applied to portion of premises in which the Debtor resided; also, in valuing the homestead, the Court relied on the ratio of the square footage the apartment beared to the entire premises).

In re CGE Shattuck, LLC, 2000 BNH 024 (denying creditor’s motion to reconsider the Court’s opinion and order dated April 24, 2000, wherein it found the value of the debtor’s property that purportedly secures the creditor’s claim to be equal to $1,300,000, on the ground that the creditor failed to show newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of fact or law), appeal dismissed, BAP No. NH 00-076 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Mar. 15, 2001) (granting the debtor’s motion to dismiss the appeal because the bankruptcy court’s orders regarding valuation of the debtor’s property were not final appealable orders and did not meet any of the exceptions to the finality rule).

Gras v. Global Envtl. Solutions, Ltd. (In re Global Envtl. Solutions, Ltd.), 2000 BNH 023 (complaint brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548 by creditor was not frivolous nor was motion to dismiss brought in bad faith, therefore sanctions would not be imposed against the plaintiff).

In re Shepherds Hill Development Co., LLC, 2000 BNH 021 (denying the trustee’s objection to the amount of an oversecured claim held by a secured creditor on the following grounds: (1) the mortgage’s failure to specify the default interest rate provided for in the note did not eliminate its effect with respect to the creditor’s secured claim; (2) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(b), the creditor is entitled to post-petition interest at an increased default rate, as envisioned by the note, since such a rate is equitable; and (3) pre-petition payments to the creditor pursuant to an option contract with a third party would not be subject to equitable subordination). 

In re Camann, 2000 BNH 022 (denying debtor’s motion to reject an alleged executory contract pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(a) because the debtor had not entered into a contract enforceable under New Hampshire state law with his former spouse and/or son regarding the disposition of marital assets), aff’d, 2002 DNH 093.

Neveu v. Martin (In re Martin), 2000 BNH 020 (holding that divorce stipulation requiring Debtor to pay for certain joint credit card debts was not alimony or support as contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and that the Plaintiff failed to meet her burden with regard to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)).

In re Camann, 2000 BNH 018 (denying motion to employ special counsel pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 327(e) because debtor failed to articulate a “specified special purpose” for special counsel’s services, because debtor contemplated using special counsel “in conducting the case,” and because debtor failed to demonstrate that special counsel’s services would be in “the best interest of the estate”).