Source: https://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:32:16+00:00

Document:
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.
Morris v. Massachusetts Educ. Fin. Auth. (In re Morris), 2019 BNH 002 (holding that the repayment of the debtor’s student loan debt would not impose an undue hardship within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) where the debtor’s household income would be sufficient to cover his student loans payments if the debtor were able to obtain another restaurant job making roughly the same money he made before he voluntarily left his last position).
Rissala v. New Hampshire Higher Educ. Assistance Found. (In re Rissala), 2019 BNH 001 (holding that the repayment of the debtor’s student loan debt would not impose an undue hardship within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) where in the near future his retirement benefits would be sufficient to cover the payment and leave him with a material surplus each month, and debtor was eligible for a zero monthly payment program in the interim).
In re Babineau, 2018 BNH 012, issued Dec. 18, 2018 (unpublished) (overruling chapter 13 debtor's objection to creditor-spouse's proof of claim, finding that attorney's fees awarded to creditor-spouse in divorce proceeding and incurred proving that debtor misrepresented his income to avoid paying creditor-spouse additional alimony is a “domestic support obligation” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101 (14A), entitled to priority and payment in full pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 507 (a)(1) and 1322(a)(2)).
In re Evarts, 2018 BNH 011 (overruling the debtor’s objection to the mortgagee’s proof of claim, which challenged escrow and hazard insurance charges and the amount of the principal balance under the loan modification agreement, as the debtor failed to present substantial evidence that would permit the Court to disallow these components of the claim in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)).
In re ‌Burrows, 2018 BNH 010 (overruling the trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claim of homestead exemption under NH RSA 480:1 in debtor’s abutting parcel of land as the debtor actually used the adjoining lot in order to enjoy his home).
In re Vertullo, 2018 BNH 009 (holding that chapter 13 debtors may cure defaults under a mortgage and maintain payments pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(1), where a mortgagee has conducted a foreclosure auction prepetition but has failed to complete the foreclosure sale by recording a deed before the debtor files chapter 13 bankruptcy, continuing to follow Judge Deasy’s decision in In re Beeman, 235 B.R. 519 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999), and declining to follow the BAP’s decision in TD Bank, N.A. v. LaPointe (In re LaPointe), 505 B.R. 589 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2014)).
Browne v. Lombard (In re Lombard), 2018 BNH 008 (after a trial on the merits on the plaintiff's 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) claims determining that (1) claim preclusion barred the relitigation of certain aspects of the claims, (2) that the plaintiff's claims lacked merit on substantive grounds, and (3) that the plaintiff's post-trial motion to conform the pleadings to the evidence presented at trial had to be denied because the defendant had not implicitly consented to the litigation of an unpleaded claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b)(2)).
Browne v. Lombard (In re Lombard), 2018 BNH 007 (finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(c) to maintain their claims to deny the debtor's discharge per 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), and, alternatively, finding the § 727(a)(4)(A) claims were without merit).
In re Foistner, 2018 BNH 005 (denying the debtor’s motion to vacate the Court’s order overruling his objection to the appearance of creditor’s counsel pursuant to FRBP 60(b)(3) as being wholly without merit and finding that an order to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions pursuant to FRBP 9011 against the debtor and/or the debtor’s counsel was warranted).
(a) Reported Opinions. Opinions that are reported in the Bankruptcy Reporter, Bankruptcy Court Decisions or other reporter shall be cited using the citation format for such reporter suggested in The Bluebook, e.g., In re Grant, 242 B.R. 800, 801 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2000).
(b) Unreported Opinions. Unreported opinions are opinions that have not been released for publication in printed reports. An opinion is issued in unreported form where, in the view of the judge issuing the opinion, the opinion does not articulate a new rule of law, modify an established rule, apply an established rule to novel facts, or otherwise serve as a significant guide to future parties and litigants. While unreported opinions may be cited by parties and litigants in unrelated cases in the form described in paragraphs (c) or (d), their precedential value may be limited.
(c) Unreported Opinions Published on the Court’s Web Site and Issued After January 1, 1999. Unreported opinions that are issued after January 1, 1999, shall be cited using the four-digit year in which the opinion was issued, the letters “BNH,” the three-digit opinion number located on the top of the opinion and, where reference is made to specific material within the opinion, the page number, e.g., In re Hellesen, 1999 BNH 002, 3.
(d) Unreported Opinions Not Published on the Court’s Web Site. Unreported opinions that are not published on the Court’s web site shall be cited using the citation form for unreported decisions suggested in The Bluebook, e.g., Galloway v. True (In re True), Bk. No. 96- 11447-MWV, Adv. No. 96-1093-MWV, slip. op. at 3 (Bankr. D.N.H. Aug. 22, 1997).

References: v. 
 § 523
 v. 
 § 523
 § 101
 § 502
 § 1322
 v. 
 v. 
 § 727
 v. 
 § 727
 § 727
 § 727
 v.