The Trustee sought to avoid payments made to Craft Air Services of $60,000 for services that were provided to the Debtor Tanglewood Farms. The dispute turned on whether the obligation to Craft Air was solely the liability of James Winslow, the 100% owner of Tanglewood Farms, or also of Tanglewood Farms itself. The bankruptcy court reviewed the requirements for a reasonably equivalent value defense, holding that “[a]lthough reasonably equivalent value may be the satisfaction of the antecedent debt or obligation of the debtor, it is not the satisfaction or guarantee of the debt of another.” Id. at 710 (citing Tourtellot v.… Read More
Debtor objected to a Proof of Claim in a 100% dividend Chapter 13 plan filed by Oak Harbor Capital VII (“Oak Harbor”) for an obligation purchased from Barclays Bank, asserting that the claim fails to comply with the requirements of certain subsections of the North Carolina Collection Agency Act (“NCAA”) N.C.G.S. § 58-70-1 et seq. , and therefore should be disallowed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1).
Finding that while some applicable non-bankruptcy law, such as the Statute of Limitations, would render a claim unenforceable, the NCCCA at N.C.G.S. § 58-70-150, specifically applies to a complaint or “cause of action” filed by a debt buyer to collect debts.… Read More
FIA Cards sued the Debtor seeking recovery of $46,311.81 outstanding on a credit card. The trial court granted summary judgment to FIA Cards and the Debtor appealed arguing that FIA Cards had failed to prove the existence of an account.
The Court of Appeals agreed finding that FIA Cards has only provided three credit card statements from the months surrounding the default. Further, there was no evidence in the record on appeal that even these statements were verified. As such, FIA Cards had failed to comply with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 8-45 to prove the existence of an account and summary judgment was not appropriate.… Read More
Citibank brought suit against the Debtor seeking to recover $5,108.89, which it alleged was owed on a credit card, originally issued by AT&T Universal Card in 1995 and acquired by Citibank in 2002. The Debtor disputed the amount owed, alleging that Citibank had changed the interest rate on the credit card without notifying him. Citibank did not respond to the Debtor’s discovery seeking a copy of the original credit card agreement, asserting that the request sough “documents previously provided to … Defendant and further, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, overly broad and costly given the needs of the case, the amount in controversy and the issues before the court.” The trial court granted summary judgment to Citibank.… Read More