In re Nisbet, 1999 BNH 038 (denying creditor’s prayer for dismissal of Chapter 13 plan, finding that amendment of petition to delete creditors after case was converted from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 was not bad faith and that evidence Debtors were using Chapter 13 to avoid payment of a debt that might otherwise be excepted from discharge under Chapter 7 was not, by itself, sufficient evidence of bad faith to warrant dismissal of the plan; however, denying Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan for failure to propose a plan using all post-petition disposable income to fund plan).
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.
Schreiber v. Emerson (In re Emerson), 244 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999) (holding that (1) the trustee did not meet his burden of proof under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(5); (2) the trustee met his burden of proof under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) warranting the denial of the debtors’ discharge; (3) the trustee met his burden of proof with respect to two of his claims under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) warranting the avoidance of the debtors’ preferential transfers to insiders; (4) the trustee met his burden of proof with respect to one of his claims under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B) warranting the avoidance of the debtors’ fraudulent transfers; and (5) the trustee met his burden of proof on all of his claims under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and RSA 545-A:5(II) warranting the avoidance of the debtors’ fraudulent transfers to insiders), denying reconsideration, 244 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999).
In re McKibben, 1999 BNH 036 (approving fees and expenses of Chapter 13 debtor’s attorney in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 330(a) and LBR 2016-2(c)).
HP Family Fed. Credit Union v. Oakley (In re Oakley), 1999 BNH 035 (denying plaintiff’s complaint seeking to except three debts from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B)).
Smith v. Anderson (In re Anderson), 1999 BNH 034 (finding three divorce-related debts owed to the ex-spouse plaintiff from the debtor to be in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support and therefore nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and finding that the plaintiff had not met her burden of persuasion under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)(A) with respect to two other divorce-related debts and therefore concluding that the two debts are dischargeable).
Fischbein v. Armstrong (In re Armstrong), 1999 BNH 033 (denying plaintiff’s complaint seeking to except from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) an alleged obligation of the debtor to the plaintiff relating to a plumbing and heating subcontract).
Fischbein v. Armstrong (In re Armstrong), 1999 BNH 032 (denying plaintiff’s complaint seeking to deny the debtor’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2) and (a)(4)(A) for the debtor’s failure to disclose certain assets on his bankruptcy petition).
Garrity v. Hadley (In re Hadley), 239 B.R. 433 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999) (holding that the defendant’s obligation to indemnify the ex-spouse plaintiff against payment of a joint marital debt, an obligation that arose from a divorce decree, is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) and stating that the debtor bears the burden of production with respect to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)(A), the creditor bears the burden of production and persuasion with respect to all other elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15), and the creditor bears the ultimate burden of persuasion with respect to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15)(A)).
Ford v. Ballard (In re Manter Corp.), 240 B.R. 661 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999) (“Ballard”) (granting summary judgment in favor of the Trustee and denying the Defendant’s summary judgment motion; finding that N.H. RSA 511-A is inapplicable to a post-judgment attachment since section 511-A:1 specifically states that chapter 511 applies only to prejudgment attachments; also finding that the use of the term “mesne process” is broad enough to contemplate post-judgment attachments, and therefore post-judgment attachments are available to parties in litigation in New Hampshire; however, adopting the reasoning in Dionne v. Bouley, 757 F.2d 1344 (1st Cir. 1985), the Court held that service on the Defendant was required for a valid attachment and since it was not made, the attachment was invalid).
Ford v. Ballard (In re Manter Corp.), 240 B.R. 658 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999) (“Kubisek”) (granting the Trustee’s motion for summary judgment and finding that the trustee process was invalid: N.H. RSA 512, the trustee process statute, must be complied with in order to charge the trustee and, in turn, have a claim against the assets held by the trustee; therefore, since the disclosure statements were not filed with the court, the trustee process was invalid; also finding that the trustee process, if valid, would be junior to the amount preserved to the bankruptcy estate and the remaining portion of the IRS secured claim).