Bar News - December 14, 2007
NH Bankruptcy Court Opinion Summaries
Note: The full text of the opinion below is available on the Bankruptcy Court’s web site at http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov:
In re Zenus is Jewelry, Inc., 2007 BNH 038, decided 10/25/07 (Vaughn, C.J.), published (denying the debtor’s request to pay certain prepetition vendor creditors on the grounds that the Court cannot invoke the Doctrine of Necessity to allow the payments because the vendor creditors are not critical, other vendors willing to sell on a cash on delivery basis are available, and the debtor’s situation is not so “rare” as to warrant the doctrine’s application).
In re Gagne, 2007 BNH 041, issued Nov. 21, 2007 (Deasy, J.) (published) (overruling the debtor’s objection to the mortgagee’s claim on the grounds that only 11 U.S.C. § 1322(e), and not 11 U.S.C. § 506(b), determines the amount a debtor must pay to cure an arrearage through a chapter 13 plan and concluding that under NH state law and the terms of the debtor’s mortgage the attorney’s fees and costs requested by the mortgagee in this case were reasonable and must be paid through the debtor’s plan).
In re Perrotta, 2007 BNH 042, issued Nov. 21, 2007 (Deasy, J.) (published) (denying the United States Trustee’s motion to dismiss the debtor’s case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(1) and (2) as the United States Trustee had not satisfied the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 704(b)(1)(A) because she did not file a statement within ten days after the date of the first meeting of creditors indicating that the debtor’s case would be presumed to be an abuse under 11 U.S.C. § 707 but rather filed a statement within that time frame indicating only that she was unable to determine whether the debtor’s case would be presumed to be an abuse; permitting the United States Trustee to proceed with her motion to dismiss the debtor’s case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3) based on the totality of the circumstances).
Notinger v. Brown (In re Simply Media, Inc.), 2007 BNH 043, issued Nov. 28, 2007 (Deasy, J.) (unpublished) (setting forth the procedural requirements under FRCP 38 and the substantive requirements under the Seventh Amendment and Supreme Court precedent regarding a party’s right to a jury trial in bankruptcy on claims for fraudulent transfer, constructive trust, turnover, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, abuse of process, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair and deceptive business practices).