Mr. Bass filed his 2012 federal tax return electronically, but unintentionally failed to file his state return. In July 2016, the North Carolina Department of Revenue (“NCDOR”) sent Mr. Bass a Notice of Intent to Assess for Failure to File North Carolina Return (“the Notice”) and then Mr. Bass filed his 2012 return on August 4, 2016, contending a refund was due. The NCDOR denied the refund, as the return was beyond the 3-year statute of limitations. Mr. Bass sought review with the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) and after it ruled in his favor, holding that while N.C.G.S. § 105-241.8(a) provides as 3 year limit on seeking a refund, N.C.G.S.… Read More
How did mortgage risk pricing for securitized loans change during the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis? Using a database from a major American bank that serves as trustee for private-label securitized loans, this paper shows that the decline in underwriting standards was accompanied by a decline in credit spreads on mortgages, after adjusting for loan/borrower characteristics. Observable information, including FICO and LTV, became less influential on mortgage risk pricing over time during the housing bubble. As the volume of mortgages expanded and lending terms eased during the bubble, the increase in risk failed to be reflected in higher risk premiums.… Read More
Tagged with: mortgage
After direct appeal to the 4th Circuit was declined, the district court affirmed the opinion of the bankruptcy court in Hurlburt that the anti-deficiency statute of N.C.G.S. § 45-21.28 does not allow debtors to circumvent the anti-modification provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) and (c)(2), with Witt v. United Companies Lending Corp. (In Re Witt), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997) controlling.
The district court did explicitly draw attention to the fact that in neither Witt nor Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1994), did those courts address mortgages where anti-deficiency statutes would have precluded an unsecured claim, thereby limiting the mortgage claim to the value of the collateral.… Read More
Between March 7, 2017, and November 28, 2017, Mr. Stockwell filed first a Chapter 13 and then three Chapter 7 cases, with the fourth case being filed while the third was still pending. (The dismissal of the third case had been set aside as it had been automatically dismissed due to the failure to file documents under 11 U.S.C. § 521(I) while the Bankruptcy Administrator’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.) Mr. Stockwell’s cases were filed with the apparent intent of holding off a foreclosure by Ocwen, as it was the only creditor listed in any of his cases. (That failure to disclose other creditors and to file complete schedules had caused the dismissal of the first and second cases.)
The bankruptcy court consolidated the motions to dismiss the third and fourth cases, ultimately finding that both should be dismissed under 11 U.S.C.… Read More