Bar News - January 15, 2010
US Bankruptcy Court Opinion Summaries
Note: The full text of the opinion below will be available on the Bankruptcy Court’s web site at www.nhb.uscourts.gov.
In re McLaughlin and In re Shamrock Builders, LLC and In re The Charles McLaughlin Family, LLC, 415 B.R. 23 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (Vaughn, C.J.), decided 9/3/09 (granting lender’s motions for relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 because debtors’ properties provide little equity such that the lender is not adequately protected; and denying Charles and Charletta McLaughlin’s motion to avoid attachment under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) since debtors failed to show they were insolvent and attachment had no affect on the amount lender would receive under Chapter 7 liquidation).
In re Hinsdale Greyhound Racing Assoc., Inc., 2009 BNH 027 (Vaughn, C.J.), decided 10/23/09, 417 B.R. 162 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (granting the State of New Hampshire’s motion for relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 to settle a bond under Title XXIV Chapter 284 of New Hampshire law for amounts owed by the debtor under Chapter 284, and denying State’s setoff claim against the remainder of the bond for non-Chapter 284 obligations).
Ford v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. (In re Bishop), 2009 BNH 020 (Vaughn, C.J.), decided 7/24/09 (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint because the complaint sufficiently sets forth factual allegations wherefrom an inference could be made that the plaintiff’s right to relief under § § 544 and 550 is plausible).
In re Poliquin, 2009 BNH 031 (Vaughn, C.J.), decided 12/2/09 (allowing debtor to amend her schedules to include property interests not previously listed, but denying debtor’s claim of homestead exemption in a settlement pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522 because the exemption was untimely claimed and filed in bad faith; and lifting the automatic stay to allow the state court to complete litigation on the debtor’s interest in the settlement agreement.)
DeSteph v. State of Connecticut (In re DeSteph), 2009 BNH 032 (Vaughn, C.J.), decided 12/2/09, published (dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, and violations of the New Hampshire Law § 358-C, because the State of Connecticut’s actions fall within the exception under § 364(b)(4) for governmental proceedings, and the State of Connecticut is not a "debt collector" as defined by § 358-C.)
Puzzo v. Martin (In re Martin), 2009 BNH 033 (Vaughn, C.J.) decided 12/3/09, published (granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint alleging various claims under § 523(a) because the Plaintiff failed to allege facts that plausibly give rise to a right to relief; and staying the judgment to allow Plaintiffs to re-plead their complaint.)
Monzione v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (In re Monzione), 2009 BNH 034 (Vaughn, C.J.) decided 12/3/09 (denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to Count I for violation of New Hampshire’s Consumer Protection Act, § 358-A, because the Plaintiff adequately alleges facts that plausibly show that the violations occurred within the three-year statute of limitations; and granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to Count II for violations under the Truth In Lending Act, because Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing disclosure violations, and because the action is time-barred.)
Maroun v. Fremont Investment (In re Maroun), 2009 BNH 034 (Vaughn, C.J.) decided 12/3/09 (granting Defendant’s, Litton Loans, motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II, and VII because loan servicers are exempt from the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act § 358-A, and from the Truth In Lending Act; and granting Defendant’s, Deutsche Bank, motion to dismiss as to Counts I and II, because Deutsche Bank falls within the exception of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act; and denying both Litton Loan’s and Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the complaint.)