On October 21, 1998, the Clouses granted a Deed of Trust against their home originally to Homecomings Financial, later assigned to Deutsche Bank and serviced by GMAC. On June 22, 2012, Turnip Investments, following its suit against the Clouses, purchased the property at a judgment execution sale for $1,000. Subsequently, Deutsche Bank commenced foreclosure against the property and Turnip Investments appealed the foreclosure authorization by the Clerk first to the Superior Court, where Turnip Investments raised no objections to any evidence, and then a further appeal to the Court of Appeals.
There Turnip Investment argued that the Superior Court failed to conduct a proper de novo hearing and had insufficient evidence to show that Deutsche Bank was the holder of the Note.… Read More
Debt Buyer keeps naggin’ at you night and day
Enough to drive you nuts
Pick up the phone, leave me alone
It’s time you made a stand.
Paraphrase of AC/DC- Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
More than 77 million Americans have a debt in collections. Many of these debts will be sold to debt buyers for pennies, or fractions of pennies, on the dollar. This Article details the perilous path that debts travel as they move through the collection ecosystem. Using a unique dataset of 84 consumer debt purchase and sale agreement, it examines the manner in which debts are sold, oftentimes as simple data on a spreadsheet, devoid of any documentary evidence.… Read More
This is an excellent primer from the Center for Responsible Lending for understanding debt buyer industry, as well as a overview of various federal and state laws and regulations and policy recommendations.
North Carolina is appropriately given pride of place for being the first state to enact the novel requirement that debt buyers to actually prove the debts using admissible evidence. See N.C.G.S. § 5870-150 et. seq..
This article, however, continues the unfortunate tradition of previous examinations of debt buyers in failing to address the overwhelming number of Proofs of Claims filed by debt buyers in consumer bankruptcy cases.… 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
Global Acceptance Credit, a debt collector and debt buyer, sued Dayton for a debt. Global did not attach a copy of the contract or other writing signed by Dayton evidencing the debt, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 58-70-150. Dayton moved to dismiss, but the trial court allowed amendment of the complaint to include such documents, finding that no new causes of action were asserted, no undue delay or undue prejudice would result. The trial court did, however, note that the attorney for Global “should have paid better attention to N.C.G.S. § 58-70-150 when drafting the original Complaint and attaching documents thereto.”
This case can be used to show a pattern and practice of insufficient pleadings in the future.… Read More
B-Line purchased a charge account that the Debtors originally had with Kay Jewelers, which had been listed as a creditor on Schedule F of the Debtors’ petition, with a balance owing of $860.61. Following the filing of the Debtors’ bankruptcy, B-Line solicited a reaffirmation from the Debtors, including a warning/threat that “If the Jewelry purchased under this secured account have been destroyed, gifted or transferred, or sold, [B-Line] may have a non-dischargeability cause of action against you/your client(s) under 11 U.S.C. § 523.” In response, the Debtors initiated a adversary proceeding against B-Line, alleging that B-Line violated N.C.G.S. § 58-70-1 because it carried on a “collection agency business” without securing a permit through the Commissioner of Insurance before it solicited a reaffirmation agreement.… Read More