In Perkins v. PHEAA, Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. of the Middle District of North Carolina provides a fairly emphatic reminder that an issue actually decided in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding does not become available for another round of litigation simply because the debtor later develops new arguments—or new labels—for why the original decision was wrong.
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.
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.
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.
