Summary: Debtor filed a reaffirmation agreement with Ally for a vehicle with the bankruptcy court, despite showing that her monthly income minus monthly expenses resulted in a negative net income, indicating a presumption of undue hardship. The reaffirmation stated that the Debtor intended to adjust her expenses to afford the car payments. The Debtor’s attorney did not complete the certification in the reaffirmation that there was no undue hardship. Due to the absence of the attorney certification, the bankruptcy court set the reaffirmation for hearing.

Summary: Epes was the guarantor of a lease on behalf of the lessee, CRC Management. CRC eventually sold its assets to Fuddruckers. In April 2010, Fuddruckers filed bankruptcy. In July 2010, Epes brought an action for a declaratory judgment that he no longer had any liability under the guaranty, however summary judgment was granted to the Defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the lease included the filing of bankruptcy.

Summary: Dorothy Vogler died testate, with her debts exceeding the value of her real and personal property. Chris Vogler, the executor of her estate, initiated a special proceeding for the purpose of obtaining authorization to sell the real estate that Ms. Vogler had owned at the time of her death and to use the proceeds to pay her debts. Such sale was authorized and subsequently confirmed on January 12, 2011, with the Clerk authorizing payment of the costs of the proceeding and the remaining balance on the mortgage owed to Bank of America (“BOA”) on the real property.

Summary: The Court had previously entered a Consent Order that allowed Bank of America to proceed with foreclosure against some of the property of the estate and also appointed a Chapter 11 Trustee. TP subsequently filed a Motion to Set Aside or Modify the Consent Order allowing foreclosure.

Summary: Three venture capital firms (“the Movants”) provided secured debt financing to Taproot and owned a controlling interest in Taproot. In December of 2009, Taproot entered into a contract to sell its assets to Neusoft, with The Hina Group (“THG”) acting as a broker. In May 2010, THG brought suit against Taproot and the Movants, seeking to recover the unpaid broker fees. Taproot was represented by both Wyrick Robbins and Sheppard Mullin and the Movants were represented by DLA Piper.

Summary: The Debtor leased a town home from Brett Mestel for $1,395/month, with a term running from August 2009 until September 2011 and month-to-month thereafter. In February 2012, Mestel commenced an eviction action after the Debtor fell behind in rent payments. Summary Ejectment was granted on April 16, 2012, and the ten-day appeal period ran on April 27, 2012. The Debtor filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on April 30, 2012. Thereafter, the Mecklenburg Sheriff served the Debtor with a Writ of Possession, requiring her to vacate prior to May 9, 2012.

Summary: American Residential Services, L.L.C (“American”) received $186,419.35 from the Debtor in the 90-days preceding its bankruptcy and the Trustee sought to avoid such payments as a preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547. The parties agreed that the Trustee had met his burden regarding the first four requirements of § 547(b), but that he had failed to show that American had received more than it would have under Chapter 7, as American “could and would have filed appropriate claims of lien ...

Summary: The U.S. Attorney filed a Criminal Information against the Male Debtor on March 24, 2011, alleging that he had conspired to defraud a federal crop insurance program by making over $60,000 in false claims for tobacco crops he had sold under false names to hide production. The Debtors filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy on November 19, 2011. On February 22, 2012, the Male Debtor plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to make false statements, to make materially false statements and to commit mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

Summary: The Debtor was entitled to one-half of her ex-husband’s military retirement, but was also liable for one of their children’s student loan debts. The Debtor was in default on such payments and her ex-husband paid $4,183.07 on that debt. The property settlement required the Debtor to indemnify her ex-husband for payments on the student loan debt. 11 U.S.C.

Miller v. Orcutt- Damages as Result of Preference.pdfSummary: The Plaintiffs purchased a home with Countrywide Home Loans providing first mortgage. In addition, the Plaintiffs borrowed the down payment of $56,000 from the Female Plaintiff’s father, Stephen Barnwell (“Barnwell”).