Summary:

In Vibal v. Data Mortgage, Judge Terrence W. Boyle dismissed a federal lawsuit challenging a completed North Carolina foreclosure, providing a useful warning about both Rooker-Feldman and how consumer claims should be pleaded following foreclosure.

The homeowner alleged that the defendants lacked authority to foreclose, relied on a fabricated note, and misrepresented their authority. But the Cumberland County Clerk had already authorized foreclosure, the Superior Court affirmed, and the sale occurred.

The Birth of “Creditor Qualified Immunity”: Has Taggart Made the Bankruptcy Discharge Too Hard to Enforce?

Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol114/iss3/3

ABSTRACT:

Available at:  TransUnion — Debt Settlement Enrollment Linked to Greater Credit Score Decli

In Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Philipson, No. 25-2354 (4th Cir. Aug. 27, 2026), the Fourth Circuit vacated a garnishment order because the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to enter a final order.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), a magistrate judge can enter final judgment only when the case has been properly referred and the parties consent. Here, the record did not show that the parties voluntarily consented after receiving the required written notice. The garnishment order therefore had to be vacated and the case remanded.

Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7202339 

Abstract:

Summary:

In Trimble v. Entrata, Inc., the Fourth Circuit has again reminded businesses that the Federal Arbitration Act may favor arbitration, but it does not allow a company to manufacture an enforceable arbitration agreement out of contractual smoke and mirrors.

Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol114/iss2/5

Summary:

Jon Anthony Seppanen purchased a vehicle from Fayetteville Dodge under a retail installment contract requiring 72 monthly payments of $988.93, secured by the vehicle and expressly permitting repossession after default. Seppanen nevertheless believed that writing "Pay to the order of JON SEPPANEN, without recourse" on the agreement discharged his obligation to pay.

Mortgage servicing transfers are supposed to transfer the servicing of a mortgage. They are not supposed to erase a loan modification, resurrect amounts that were already capitalized or waived, or require a homeowner to repeatedly litigate what everyone had supposedly already agreed to.

But that, at least according to the evidence presented by the homeowner in Johnson v. SN Servicing Corp., is essentially what happened.

Available at:  https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/the-business-debtor-in-chapter-13-revisiting-consumer-reorganization-for-small-0

(ABI membership required)