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.

Summary: Construction Supervision Services (“CSS”) filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January 2012, after which several subcontractors, which had previously provided stone, concrete, and fuel to CSS on an open account, sought to serve notice of liens on funds owed by others to CSS, thereby perfecting such liens. BB&T, which had lent CSS money, objected to the Subcontractors’ post-petition notice and perfection, arguing that such actions violated 11 U.S.C.

Summary: The Scheiders refinanced their South Carolina home in 2006 with a $1.178 million adjustable rate note payable to Mortgage Network, granting a mortgage securing the note, which provided that MERS would act as the nominee for Mortgage Network. Mortgage Network subsequently transferred the note, with an endorsement that read “Pay to the order of ______ Without Recourse.” , with the blank later being filled with “IndyMac Bank F.S.B.” Indy Mac later endorsed the note in blank, without recourse, and it is currently held by Deutsche Bank.

Summary: FIA brough suit against Caviness for a credit card debt in the amount of $10,150.19. Lacking the actual credit card agreement, it present as evidence monthly billing statements from November 2008 through March 2011, copies of checks from Caviness (and his business), as well as from a third party, and an affidavit from its authorized representative.