Despite being provided with evidence in the form of cancelled checks and insurance policies showing that they were not delinquent in their mortgage payments, Citimortgage commenced foreclosure against the Nances. After refinancing their house, the Nances brought suit against Citimortgage alleging, among other causes of action, unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and negligent and/or intentional damage to credit report. Citimortgage moved to dismiss.
As to the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, the district court restated the requirements to state a claim as:
(1) the obligation owed must be a debt;
(2) the one owning the obligation must be a consumer;
(3) the one trying to collect the obligation must be a debt collector;
(4) an unfair or deceptive act;
(5) in or affecting commerce; and
(6) proximately causing injury.… Read More
Debt in America Abstract:
Debt can be constructive, allowing people to build equity in homes or finance education, but it can also burden families into the future. Total debt is driven by mortgage debt; both are highly concentrated in high-cost housing markets, mostly along the coasts. Among Americans with a credit file, average total debt was $53,850 in 2013, but was substantially higher for people with a mortgage ($209,768) than people without a mortgage ($11,592). Non-mortgage debt, in contrast, is more spatially dispersed. It ranges from a high of $14,532 in the East South Central division to a low of $17,883 in New England.… Read More
Fritz closed his account with Duke Energy when he moved, but was one week late in paying the final bill, so it was referred to a debt collector. He did pay the balance to Duke Energy, who applied the amount to the balance on his new utility bill. The debt collector was not informed of the payment and two months later, reported Fritz as delinquent to the three major credit bureaus, resulting in a 77 point decline in his credit score. Fritz brought suit against Duke Energy (as well as the debt collector under other bases) under N.C.G.S. § 75-54, alleging that Duke Energy had falsely represented to the debt collector the status of the debt.… Read More
As evidence of the insolvency of the Debtor in support of a long-running preference action, the Trustee sought to introduce Affidavits from his paralegal, from the Director of Financial Services of one of the Debtor’s largest creditors, from the Examiner appointed in the case and from himself. The bankruptcy court found that there were numerous foundational and authentification issues with these Affidavits that would need to be addressed and was sufficient to deny the Trustee’s motion for summary judgment as to the Debtor’s insolvency at the time of the transfers in question.
Further, based on questions regarding whether the Debtor received any benefit from these transfers, arising from inconsistencies in the deposition testimony of James Winslow, the owner of the Debtor, the court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the Debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value.… Read More
Prior to filing bankruptcy, the Meabons first consulted with an attorney who informed them that they would need to disclose, as an asset in his bankruptcy schedules, Richard Meabon’s interest in a trust. As a result of the first attorney’s advice, the Meabons chose to file with another attorney, to whom they did not disclose the existence of the trust. After filing Chapter 7 without disclosure of the trust either in their petition or at the §341 Meeting of Creditors, the deadline to object to discharge passed on June 1, 2010. On June 2nd or 3rd, the first attorney notified the second, who, over the objection of the Meabons, alerted the Chapter 7 Trustee, who ultimately obtained the revocation of their discharge.… Read More
Plaintiffs brought suit against, among other, lenders that had financed mortgage loans for the development of investment properties, alleging that the appraisals conducted, which unanimously and uniformly valued real property lots, regardless of specific qualities or locations, for $500,000, the exact minimum to support the mortgage lender’s underwriting requirements, constituted both negligent underwriting and also an unfair trade practice.
Following shortly after the Dallaire opinion from the North Carolina Supreme Court (see: http://ncbankruptcyexpert.com/?p=4791 ) the Court of Appeals recited that only in exceptional circumstances would a fiduciary duty arise between a lender and borrower and even then the “borrower cannot establish a claim for negligent misrepresentation based on a loan officer’s statements .… Read More
Creditor, Two Olives, Inc., sought denial of the debtors’ discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) , asserting that“the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor . . . has permitted to be transferred . . . property of the debtor, within one year before the date of the filing of the petition.” Prior to the filing of the Chapter 7, the Debtors had allowed three parcels of real property to be sold a t foreclosure- the Ridley property was purchased with a credit bid by the lienholder and the Male Debtor’s mother purchased the McCulloch and Anclote properties for $396,338 and $189,805.65, respectively.… Read More
Siblings, Townsend and Simmons owned real property as tenants in common. Townsend brought suit seeking a partition sale of the property, naming Simmons the lienholder, Citimortgage and the City of Greensboro, as defendants. After the trial court found that due to the size and nature of the property actual partition of the property could not be made without injury to the parties and ordered a partition sale. The property, despite having a tax value of $160,000.00, sold at the partition sale for $2,500.00.
The Court of Appeals upheld the partition sale, finding that the clerk of court had made findings, based on the previous failed sales history, neighboring house values and condition of the property, sufficient to support the $2,500.00 value.… Read More