Summary: Confirmation of the Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was delayed for 15 months due to an adversary proceeding to cram-down a residential mortgage held by JPMorgan Chase. Following dismissal of the adversary proceeding, the Debtor proposed a plan that would have run for 60 months from confirmation. Because that plan would have run for a total of 75 months from the first §341 Meeting of Creditors, the Trustee objected. Finding that this issue had already been addressed by the 4th Circuit in West v. Costen, 826 F.2d 1376, 1378 (4th Cir.

Summary: In the bankruptcy of Garlock Sealing Technology, allegations were raised that national counsel for mesothelioma victims had engaged in fraud, deceit, and other activities prohibited by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, in settling their clients’ claims. After the bankruptcy judge ordered the hearing closed, Legal Newsline filed an emergency motion to keep the hearing at which these issues were raised open to the media and the public. Following Media General Operations, Inc. v.

Summary: The Chapter 11 Trustee sought to avoid and recover as preference, premium payments that Railworks transferred made to CPG within 90 days of filing bankruptcy, which later transferred them to TIG, which provided various insurance coverage to Railworks. While CPG had physical control over the transfers it received, it held the funds in trust for TIG. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

Olson raised FDCPA claims in federal court against Midland, which had brought a debt collection action in state court. These claims were asserted within a year of when Olson first appeared in the state court debt collection action, but more than a year after the alleged violations.

Summary: The Debtor’s great uncle Jennings had, in his waning years, received care and assistance from the Debtor and transferred his Rock Hill, S.C. home to her. When she filed bankruptcy, the Debtor asserted that Jennings was her dependent and claimed the property as exempt under N.C.G.S. § 1C-1601(a)(1).

11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4), often called the “Best Interests of the Creditors” or the “Liquidation” test, requires that: the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed under the plan on account of each allowed unsecured claim is not less than the amount that would be paid on such claim if the estate of the debtor were liquidated under chapter 7 of this title on such date; As such, Chapter 13 Debtors must pay unsecured creditors at least as much as those creditors would get in a Chapter 7 liquidation.

Summary: The Debtors principal residence was found to be worth $136,000 with a first mortgage of $116,254.11 held by PNC and a second mortgage, held by Asset Ventures, LLC, in the amount of $27,000. This second mortgage additionally took as collateral the Debtors' escrow account. Following In re Bradsher, 427 B.R. 386, 388 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2010), the court held that as an escrow account is additional personal property, the anti-modification provisions of 11 U.S.C.

Summary: Fontell brought suit against her Homeowner’s Association (“HOA”)alleging violation of the FDCPA, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”). When the district court did not grant her summary judgment on these claims, she appealled. The Court of Appeals held that her assertion that the HOA violated the MCDCA by untimely bringing suit against her was not supported by evidence sufficient as a matter of law to grant summary judgment under Rule 56(a).

Summary: After exhausting her 36 months of student loan deferments for unemployment, the Debtor sought to discharge her student loans in bankruptcy. The Department of Education offered her an Income Contingent Repayment plan (“ICRP”), with monthly payments set, at least initially, in the amount of $0.00 a month. Even though the Debtor had a very low standard of living, the bankruptcy court held that under ICRP she would have payments of $0.00 a month, her student loans would not cause a minimal standard of living.

Summary: The Trustee sought to avoid payments made to Craft Air Services of $60,000 for services that were provided to the Debtor Tanglewood Farms. The dispute turned on whether the obligation to Craft Air was solely the liability of James Winslow, the 100% owner of Tanglewood Farms, or also of Tanglewood Farms itself.