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 Taal, 520 B.R. 370 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2014) (denying creditor's motion to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) and for in rem relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4); despite three prior filings by non-debtor spouse, two of which affected the creditor's collateral, the evidence in the record did not warrant dismissal or provide a basis for in rem relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) in this debtor's first bankruptcy case of record).

Ruma v. Kehaias (In re Kehaias), 2014 BNH 012 (granting creditor's motion for summary judgment and so determining that damages awarded by a New Hampshire state court per RSA 540-A, a landlord-tenant statute, were nondischargeable as a willful and malicious injury, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6); both issue preclusion---stemming from the state court judgment---and the facts independently established by the summary judgment record required the court to enter summary judgment against the debtor).

In re Iodice, 2014 BNH 013 (denying creditor's objection to the debtor's homestead exemption pursuant to New Hampshire RSA 480:1: the debtor owned two parcels of contiguous real property, one of which was undisputed homestead property; the debtor was able to exempt the disputed parcel, despite not having actively used that parcel during his bankruptcy case, because he had previously used it in connection with the undisputed homestead property, and because the creditor did not present sufficient evidence that the debtor intended to permanently abandon it).

Kev-Ray Investments LLC v. Lemay (In re Lemay), 2014 BNH 011 (granting summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 on the basis that creditor failed to demonstrate evidence of willfulness and malice under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6); and denying summary judgment on (i) § 523(a)(2)(A) claim---assignment of debt did not prevent assignee creditor from proving reliance on alleged misrepresentations the debtor made to the assignor---and (ii) on claim under NH RSA § 358-A, as while lease transaction between debtor and creditor was a covered transaction made in the ordinary course of business, material questions of fact existed as to remaining allegations).

In re Fournier, 2014 BNH 010 (denying the debtors’ motion seeking to void the bank’s second mortgage lien on the debtors’ principal residence, as the court found that the value of the debtors’ residence exceeded the first mortgagee’s claim; accordingly, value existed so that the bank’s second mortgage claim was partially secured under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and, therefore, the debtors could not modify the rights of the bank under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2)).

In re Stevens, 2014 BNH 009 (denying confirmation of the Debtor's chapter 13 plan, upon a creditor's objection, for failing to meet the best interest of creditors test under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4); the Debtor, who bore the burden of proof, failed to present sufficient evidence to support his valuation of his primary asset, a pizza restaurant organized as an LLC).

Blanchard v. New Hampshire Higher Educ. Assist. Found. (In re Blanchard), 2014 BNH 008 (finding the Debtor established that not discharging his student loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) would impose an undue hardship under the totality of the circumstances test; the Court expressly rejected the Brunner test).

In re Gambale, 512 B.R. 117 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2014) (sustaining in part and overruling in part the debtor’s objection to his former wife’s claim arising from the couple’s divorce action, finding that a portion of the claim was entitled to priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1) as it constituted a “domestic support obligation” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A) and finding that the remainder of the claim did not fall within the definition of a “domestic support obligation” as the obligation was not in the “nature of alimony, maintenance, or support”).

Department of Employment Security v. Searle (In re Searle), 2014 BNH 006 (determining that overpayment of unemployment compensation benefits was a nondischargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A); under the totality of the circumstances the Court determined that the debtor obtained these benefits with fraudulent intent and that the Department of Employment Security justifiably relied of the debtor's periodic certifications of earnings in disbursing unemployment benefits).

Stone v. Highlands Fuel Delivery, LLC (In re Stone), 2014 BNH 005 (granting debtor's motion for summary judgment -- as to liability only -- that a creditor's failure to take any affirmative action to prevent a state court from holding a hearing and directing that a bench warrant issue after the debtor received a discharge of the underlying debt under 11 U.S.C. § 727 constituted a violation of the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2)).

Pages