Tag: reasonably equivalent value

Bankr. M.D.N.C.: Daniel v. Jones Family Holdings – § 548 Avoidance of Foreclosure for Less than Reasonably Equivalent Value


Mr. Daniel, together with the Chapter 13 Trustee subsequently added as a necessary Plaintiff, sought to avoid a pre-petition foreclosure by his homeowner’s association of his residence (in which the upset period had elapsed prior to filing of the bankruptcy) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1), as it had occurred within two years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy, had made the Debtor insolvent and provided less than “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for the transfer. Jones Family Holdings (“JFH”), the highest bidder and purchaser of the property, moved to dismiss for failing to adequately state a claim, as it is a good faith, third party purchaser protected by state law, and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, res judicata, and collateral estoppel prevent the Daniel from bringing a claim.… Read More

Tagged with: , , ,

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: Angell v. Morris (In re Tanglewood Farms)- Reasonably Equivalent Value


More reasonably equivalent value discussions in the Tanglewood Farms case.


Not every order granting avoidance of a judgment lien or for relief from the stay on a car are treated as a written opinion,  but maybe since these  reasonably equivalent value cases are becoming nearly as common, they will stop being treated as such.

For a copy of the opinion, please see:

Angell v. Morris (In re Tanglewood Farms)- Reasonably Equivalent Value

See also:



http://ncbankruptcyexpert.com/?p=4829 Read More

Tagged with: ,

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: Angell v. Montague Farms- Evidence of Insolvency and Reasonably Equivalent Value


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

Tagged with: , , ,