In re Focus Capital, Inc., 504 B.R. 296 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2014) (denying creditors' motion to dismiss the debtor's chapter 7 case, based on pre-conversion events surrounding the debtor's initial chapter 11 filing; and denying relief from the automatic stay because the moving judgment creditors had not established cause under 362(d) for relief from the automatic stay to recover the proceeds of the debtor's errors and omissions insurance policy where both the policy and its proceeds were property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)).
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.
Ruma v. Kehaias (In re Kehaias), 2013 BNH 020 (denying a motion for summary judgment that a post-petition, pre-conversion claim for willful and malicious injury—as embodied in a post-petition state court judgment—was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), because the state court judgment that the plaintiff obtained was void as a violation of the automatic stay; without the findings in the state court judgment, the record was insufficient to support summary judgment in the adversary proceeding).
In re Jordan, 2013 BNH 019 (granting a secured creditor's motion to dismiss a chapter 13 debtor's petition—filed seven months after his still-pending chapter 7 case commenced—as being filed in bad faith, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c), because the totality of the circumstances—including the fact that the creditor previously obtained relief from the automatic stay in the still-pending chapter 7 case and conducted a foreclosure sale after the debtor unsuccessfully sought to enjoin the foreclosure in state court, and the fact that the chapter 13 petition was filed one day before recording of the foreclosure deed--indicated that the chapter 13 case was functionally an improper effort to reimpose the automatic stay already terminated in the prior case).
In re Ricketts, 2013 BNH 018 (granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss count two of the complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) as the court lacks jurisdiction over the debtor’s claim for damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained in the defendant’s mortgage and denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss count one pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) as the debtor met her burden to plead sufficient facts that state a claim that is plausible on its face for relief for violation of the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)).
In re Cahill, 503 B.R. 535 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2013) (holding that the value of the debtors’ principal residence under §§ 506(a)(1) and 1123(b)(5) would be determined after a valuation hearing held on a date near the hearing on confirmation of the debtors’ chapter 11 plan and declining to use the value of the residence as of the petition date).
Smith v. The Quizno’s Master LLC, (In re Bouley), 503 B.R. 524 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2013) (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and transferring adversary proceeding to the District of Colorado as required by the forum selection clause governing disputes between the debtors' bankruptcy estate and former franchisor).
In re Turner, 2013 BNH 017 (finding that a proposed interest rate of 5%, representing an upward adjustment of 1.75% over the prime interest rate, was sufficient to satisfy the cramdown requirements of section 1129(b), using the formula approach articulated in Till v. SCS Credit Corp, 541 U.S. 465 (2004), because there was a substantial equity cushion and because the creditor had not met its burden to demonstrate the appropriateness of a greater upward adjustment).
In re PM Cross, 2013 BNH 014 (denying as untimely motion under Bankruptcy Rule 2018(a) of pre-bankruptcy foreclosure sale bidder to intervene in chapter 11 case and assert a request that the Court alter or amend its earlier decision not to retroactively lift the automatic stay of § 362(a)).
In re Perry, 2013 BNH 013 (overruling debtor’s objection to claim and holding that debtor had failed to provide substantial evidence under Massachusetts law that he did not owe arrearages asserted in a domestic support obligation claim filed by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue).
In re James, 2013 BNH 011 (dismissing chapter 13 case as filed in bad faith pursuant to section 1307(c) because there was no substantive change in the debtor's circumstances and because the debtor had, by his continued manipulation of the bankruptcy system, significantly delayed creditor's recovery).