NHBA - Bar News Issue

Note: The full text of the opinions below are available on the Bankruptcy Court’s website:

Rizzo v. Mindes (In re Mindes), 2009 BNH 011 (Vaughn, C.J.), decided April 2, 2009, unpublished (denying complaint because no false representation was made under section 523(a)(2)(A) when at the time of making the statement the defendant intended to perform the future action but later changes his mind, or intervening events cause him to act otherwise).

U.S. Trustee v. Perrotta (In re Perrotta), 2009 BNH 013, issued on June 3, 2009 (Deasy, J.) (published) (denying the debtor’s motion to dismiss a complaint to revoke the debtor’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1) based upon information discovered after the expiration of the deadline to object to discharge in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(a) but before entry of a discharge, where entry of the discharge was delayed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(c)(1)(D) due to a pending motion to dismiss for abuse under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b); holding that application of the deadline to object to discharge in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(a) under the circumstances of the case would be contrary to the fresh start policy of the Bankruptcy Code, the congressional delegation of rulemaking authority in 28 U.S.C. § 2075, and would be an abuse of the bankruptcy process under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a)).