The full text of the opinion below is available on the Bankruptcy Court’s web site at : http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov

In re Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. and Auto Image ID, Inc., 2005 BNH 019 (June 3, 2005)(Deasy, J.) (not published).

In reviewing hourly rates and expenses in interim fee application of debtor counsel in chapter 11 case, under 11 U.S.C. sec. 330(a)(3)(E) Court would consider customary compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners outside of New Hampshire. When objecting to expense request, objecting party must present evidence that expenses were unreasonable, unnecessary or not expended as part of representing Debtor. The fact that a category or type of expense may enjoy wide spread acceptance among comparable professionals informs, but does not control the Court’s final decision on reasonableness of expenses.

In re Carolyn T. Ouellette, 2005 BNH 020 (June 30, 2005) (Deasy, J.) (not published). Debtor’s Motion to Confirm Trustee’s Abandonment of Real Property requested the Court to confirm that a parcel of real estate was properly abandoned by the chapter 7 trustee. The motion did not present any legal or factual dispute for the Court to decide. The Court found the Motion to be a request for an advisory opinion in nature of a “comfort order” for the benefit of a title insurance underwriter. Since the Court is not empowered to render advisory opinions, and may only consider actual cases or controversies, the Court declined the invitation to dabble in title insurance business and denied the motion.

Francis v. Eaton (In re Hollis Eaton), 2005 BNH 023 (decided July 7, 2005)(Deasy, J.)

Even though the deadline to file an objection to the dischargeability of a debt in Bankruptcy Rule 4007 is not jurisdictional, the bankruptcy court does not have unlimited discretion to apply equitable principles to extend deadline to object to dischargeability. Discretion rooted in the general equitable powers granted by the Bankruptcy Code does not trump the express limitations on the exercise of that discretion by the language in Bankruptcy Rules 9006(b)(3) and 4007(c).

Wrenn Associates v. John J. Paonessa Co., Inc. (In re Wrenn), 2005 BNH 022 (decided July 7, 2005) (Deasy, J.) (not published)

Court denied plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement on defendant’s counterclaim because the counterclaim stated a claim on which relief could be granted. The issue of whether the nature of a personal relationship rises to the level of a confidential relationship sufficient to impose a constructive trust is a question of fact for trial. The nature of relationship, as opposed to the definition of relationship (i.e. business or personal) controls the outcome. The imposition of a constructive trust is not precluded simply because the parties have a business relationship., nor is it compelled simply because the parties have a personal or family relationship.

Exceptional Properties, Inc. v. Georges (In re Georges), 2005 BNH 021, issued July 1, 2005 (Vaughn, C.J.) (not published)

(Court (1) denies the Plaintiff’s complaint under § 523(a)(2)(A) because there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant’s representation of ownership of certain equipment caused damage to the Plaintiff; (2) but the debt owed to the Plaintiff in the amount of $361,087 is excepted from discharge under the § 523(a)(4) embezzlement count, finding that the circumstances, in which the Defendant was in possession of the property and that a significant amount of material was not accounted for, indicates fraud; (3) denies the Defendant’s discharge pursuant to § 727(a)(3) because the Defendant failed to keep adequate records sufficient to determine his business transactions concerning the operation of the pit; and (4) denies the Defendant’s counterclaim for mitigating damages since the Defendant himself probably caused the problem).