Summary:

In JSmith v.  Clancy & Theys, Judge Joseph Callaway addressed a familiar temptation in bankruptcy litigation: trying to convert an ordinary contract dispute into a turnover action under 11 U.S.C. § 542. The court allowed most of the debtor’s claims to proceed—but drew a clear line around turnover.

Summary:

In Israel v. Zachary, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that a landlord who interferes with a tenant’s efforts to retrieve property after eviction can be liable for conversion and unjust enrichment, though the court vacated the damages award for lack of sufficient valuation evidence.

Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6192358

Available at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4364&context=clevstlrev

Summary:

In Tederick v. LoanCare, LLC, the Fourth Circuit vacated a summary judgment ruling that had dismissed a consumer class action against mortgage servicer LoanCare under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). The appellate court held that the statute imposes strict liability, meaning that a borrower does not need to prove the servicer intended to violate the law.

Available at: https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/03/sports-betting-is-everywhere-especially-on-credit-reports/

Summary (Liberty Street Economics + NY Fed Staff Report)

The Federal Reserve’s analysis confirms what many consumer bankruptcy attorneys have been seeing anecdotally: legalized sports betting is not just entertainment—it is increasingly showing up as measurable financial distress.

Summary:

In Terrance v. Coastal Federal Credit Union, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina affirmed a bankruptcy court decision imposing $5,000 in sanctions for a willful violation of the automatic stay, while rejecting several broader arguments raised by the pro se debtors on appeal.

The decision provides a useful reminder of two points frequently litigated in stay-violation cases:

1. Who is entitled to damages under §362(k), and

Summary:

Arthur and Lisa Perry claim that a mystery deed of trust appeared in the public records against their home—one tied to a loan that Arthur Perry insists he never applied for, never authorized, and never received. According to the complaint, Mr. Perry purchased the property in 2005 with a legitimate mortgage, but in 2006 a second deed of trust was recorded in favor of Corinthian Mortgage (d/b/a SouthBanc Mortgage).