Summary: The Mecklenburg Clerk of Court authorized a foreclosure sale on September 29, 2010. There was no appeal of that order. Nearly a year later on August 8, 2011, the homeowner brought suit alleging that the foreclosure order had been premised on fraudulent documents, that the parties initiating the foreclosure had lacked any interest in the debt and lack of notice.

Summary: The Plaintiff provided paving services for the Richmond Hills development starting in August 2005 and asserted that its date of last furnishing of materials was February 24, 2010. It filed a Claim of Lien on March 30, 2010, a month after the property was sold at foreclosure.

Summary: In a dispute between Sun Trust Mortgage and United Guaranty, which insured against payment defaults on certain loans products, one of Sun Trust’s employees was found to have deliberately altered e-mails to manufacture documentary support for Sun Trust’s position in the dispute. The district court ordered Sun Trust to pay United Guaranty’s attorneys’ fees and costs related to the sanctions motion that was brought by United Guaranty, which had additionally sought dismissal of the entire suit. Relying on United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462 (4th Cir.

Summary: Affirmed the bankruptcy court opinion from In re Somerset Props. SPE, LLC, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1603, 56 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 88, 2012 WL 1230268 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2012) on the same grounds. For a copy of the opinion, please see: MGHC Group v.

Summary: Conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 is governed by 11 U.S.C.

Summary: The Deed of Trust held by BB&T against real property references a promissory note dated September 7, 2005. The actual promissory note, however, is dated September 8, 2005. Relying on Beaman v. Head (In re Head Grading Co.), 353 B.R.122, 123- 24 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006), the Debtors attacked the validity of the lien. BB&T first argued that because the Debtor had executed a Change in Terms Agreement, explicitly affirming the note, it should be estopped from now contesting the enforceability.

Summary: In attempting to set aside a foreclosure, Johnson brought numerous state and federal lawsuits against Bank of America, its attorneys, and the Substitute Trustee, alleging FDCPA, UDTPA, and other claims. All of these suits were eventually dismissed, with obtaining on two occasions Rule 11 sanctions for attorneys’ fees.

Summary: The Homeowners argued that their mortgage closing was conducted by two non-attorneys, whose advice regarding their rights and obligations constituted the unauthorized practice of law under N.C.G.S. § 84-4. As such, relying on In re Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by Bradburn, 199 N.C. App. 549, 551, 681 S.E.2d 828 (2009), they argued that the contract was void and unenforceable. In Bradburn, the Court of Appeals had found that a mortgage made by a broker unlicensed under N.C.G.S.

Summary: Despite the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S.

Summary: The Debtors moved to modify their Chapter 13 plan, surrendering two pieces of real property and seeking to reduce their plan payment to the lowest amount possible to pay a 100% dividend to unsecured creditors over a total period of 60 months. The Chapter 13 Trustee objected, seeking a higher monthly payment, which would have repaid the debts over a shorter period of time, on the basis that the Winns could afford the higher monthly payment.