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 Business Express, Inc., 2000 BNH 008 (former employee’s claim for lost wages and for reinstatement denied upon finding that there was no formal employment agreement or implied employment agreement under Connecticut law between the employee and the Debtor and where, in any event, sufficient cause existed for terminating the employment; also, the termination did not violate Connecticut’s Whistleblower Statute). 

In re Werden, 2000 BNH 007 (finding that (1) the debtor filed his Chapter 13 petition in good faith for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) and therefore holding that his case should not be dismissed, and (2) the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was not feasible and therefore denying confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6)).

Ayoob v. Bresnahan (In re Bresnahan), 2000 BNH 006 (finding that the plaintiff had not met her burden of proof with respect to her complaint seeking to except a debt from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)).

Muller v. Green (In re Green), 2000 BNH 005 (finding the debtor’s property settlement obligation to her former spouse nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)).

Askenaizer v. Dunham (In re Dunham), 2000 BNH 004 (transfers pursuant to a divorce settlement were not fraudulent transfers under N.H. RSA 545-A:4 where there was no antecedent debt in the context of the divorce proceeding and where the distribution was within the range the divorce court would find if actually litigated, thus providing reasonably equivalent value for the transfer; also, the divorce settlement did not create a transfer with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors in violation of N.H. RSA 545-A:5).

Douglas v. Douglas (In re Douglas), 2000 BNH 003 (granting in part and denying in part movant’s motion for relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1)).

Morse v. Morse (In re Morse), 2000 BNH 002 (finding the debtor’s indemnification obligation to his former spouse nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)), appeal dismissed, Civil Action No. 00-72-M (D.N.H. June 2, 2000).

Osborne v. Rivela (In re Rivela), 2000 BNH 001 (finding that plaintiff had not met his burden of proof with respect to his complaint seeking to except a judgment debt from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6)).

Dahar v. Bevis (In re Bevis), 242 B.R. 805 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint to revoke defendant’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(d)(1) and (d)(2) on the ground that plaintiff’s complaint was time-barred by 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(e)(1) and (e)(2), and holding that the doctrine of equitable tolling is not applicable to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(e)(1) and (e)(2) and that defendant’s failure to schedule an asset did not forestall the closing of her case for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 727(e)(2)).

Banc of America Commercial Finance Corporation v. CGE Shattuck, LLC (In re CGE Shattuck, LLC), 1999 BNH 046 (denying creditor’s motion to lift the automatic stay on the following grounds, where the parties had stipulated that the creditor was undersecured: (1) debtor failed to meet its initial burden to produce evidence of lack of adequate protection under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1); (2) property was necessary to an effective reorganization pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2), despite confirmation issues concerning classification of the creditor’s deficiency claim and implications arising under Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 N. LaSalle St. Partnership, 526 U.S. 434 (1999); and (3) real property was not “single asset real estate” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B) and therefore relief was not available pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(3)), 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).

Pages