Grigas v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. (In re Grigas), 252 B.R. 866 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2000) (finding some, but not all, of the plaintiff-debtor’s educational loans dischargeable as an undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and holding that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) does not allow individual loans to be partially discharged, but does allow dischargeability to be determined on a loan-by-loan basis).
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.
Absolute Financial Services, LP v. Kalantzis (In re Kalantzis), 2000 BNH 030 (rejecting per se rule that settlements of 11 U.S.C. § 727 objection to discharge actions can never be approved and adopting majority view that such settlements can be approved when fair and equitable, and holding that such settlements must at least give the United States Trustee and other creditors the opportunity to be substituted as plaintiffs before they may be found to be fair and equitable; denying creditor-plaintiff’s motion to approve settlement of its 11 U.S.C. § 727 action as not being fair and equitable).
Sherkanowski v. GMAC Mortgage Corp. (In re Sherkanowski), 2000 BNH 029 (holding that a mortgagee’s attorney violated 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) by repeatedly postponing a foreclosure sale that had been scheduled prepetition and setting a hearing on the amount of attorney’s fees and expenses to be recovered by the debtor as actual damages for violating the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h); also holding that the mortgage servicer did not violate 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) by sending monthly account statements listing the prepetition mortgage arrearage as an amount due).
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).