Mr. And Mrs. Cox, through their then attorney, entered into a settlement agreement in a civil forfeiture action brought for the collection of taxes, wherein they agreed to pay the government more than $3 million and granted Deeds of Trust against thirty-five tracts of land located throughout Alabama and North Carolina. After entering into this settlement, the government then initiated criminal prosecution of both of the Coxes and they subsequently pleaded guilty, with Mr. Cox being sentence to 33 months imprisonment, Mrs. Cox to 3 years probation, and each being fined $50,000. The when the Coxes failed to pay the agreed amount (perhaps in part because they were in prison), the government sought to judicially foreclose on the properties.… Read More
Turnover of a vehicle held by a Raeford Collision and subject to a possessory mechanic’s lien was resolved subject to a Consent Order, which required the MacGregor to provide the title to the vehicle so that a lien could be recorded with the North Carolina DMV. When the MacGregor’s Chapter 13 case was dismissed and they failed to produce the title, Raeford Collision sought an order “divesting title” or to sequester the vehicle and to hold the McGregors in contempt.
The bankruptcy court held that, while it would have had authority to grant relief in an open case, because a dismissal is a final appealable order and neither had a reservation of jurisdiction nor had been appealed, the bankruptcy court not able to “affect the rights of litigants before it .… Read More
Plaintiffs brought a class action against various payday lenders for violations of North Carolina law forbidding high interest rate loans either through by telephone or internet. The loan agreements all included forum selection clauses granting almost exclusive jurisdiction to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”), upon which the Defendants sought dismissal of the action, arguing that the district either lack of jurisdiction to hear the matter or, alternatively, that the CRST should make the initial determination regarding the enforcement of the forum selection clause.
Beginning from Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S.… Read More
Plaintiffs had brought suit against Howard A. Jacobson (“Jacobson”), Envision Sales & Marketing Group LLC (“Envision”), CILPS Acquisition LLC (“CILPS”), and the debtor (collectively “business court defendants”) and it was designated a mandatory complex business case and assigned to the North Carolina Business Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A–45.4(b). The dispute arose out of the plaintiffs’ investments in high–yield and fixed–return real estate investment groups that were allegedly established and utilized by Jacobson as vehicles to facilitate an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
28 U.S.C. § 1334 sets forth the situations where a bankruptcy court must abstain and when it may abstain in favor of state court adjudication of a particular issue or action.… Read More
The McFaddens obtained a mortgage from Flagstar in July 2007 for $116,500.00, secured by their real property located in Virginia. The note provided that it could be freely transfered by Flagstar and that the agreements in the Deed of Trust would bind and benefit successors and assignees of the note. Before August 2009, the note was transferred to Fannie Mae and around the same time the McFaddens fell delinquent on their payments. The McFaddens attempted to complete a HAMP modification, but the application took several months due to missing documents, with the parties disputing who was responsible for the missing documents.… Read More
The Debtor contested large portions of the Domestic Support Obligation (DSO) claim filed by his ex-wife, who was also seeking dismissal of his Chapter 13 plan. The bankruptcy court held that the Indiana Superior Court where this claim originated was best suited for deciding the issues, See Caswell v. Lang, 757 F.25 608, 610 (4th Cir. 1985), and continued the matter for three months to allow for such decision.
No matter how unpleasant bankruptcy cases can be, the clear preference of bankruptcy judges to punt these issues back to state court shows that domestic cases are far worse.
For a copy of the opinion, please see:
Blohm- Forum for Determination of Domestic Support Obligation.pdf… Read More
Not quite half-way through this exhaustive opinion, the bankruptcy court, in discussing Stern v. Marshall, states that “[t]he facts of Stern are interesting but not particularly helpful to the task before this Court.” Similarly, the facts here are interesting but not particularly helpful to the task of summarizing and digesting this case, largely because the opinion addresses so many variations that a complete, item by item summary would be no shorter than the actual case.
The generally holding by the bankruptcy court is that Stern provides for a two-prong test: “the question is whether the action at issue stems from the bankruptcy itself or would necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process.” Stern, 131 S.Ct.… Read More
The complaint and anser both failed, in contravention of Rules 7008(a) and 7012(b), to state whether the proceeding was core or non-core, and if non-core, where the parties consented to the bankruptcy court entering final orders or judgments. The Court held that, in light of Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), it could not that the parties have impliedly consented to its jurisdiction over non-core matters. Consequently, it gave the parties thirty days to file a statement concerning whether the matter was core or non-core and whether the parties consented to the bankruptcy court’s conclusive jurisdiction.… Read More