In , the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether servicemembers could sue the Maryland governor or Supreme Court Justices for alleged violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
The plaintiffs—active-duty servicemembers and their spouses—had default-type judgments domesticated and enforced against them in Maryland without the SCRA’s required protections (such as affidavits regarding military status and appointment of counsel).
In Montgomery v. GoodLeap, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina refused to compel arbitration where the plaintiff plausibly claimed he never agreed to the underlying loan in the first place.
The court denied the debtor’s motion for sanctions against the North Carolina DMV after her vehicle registration was revoked post-petition due to an insurance lapse. Why? Because the DMV wasn’t acting as a bill collector—it was acting as a regulator.
Two key takeaways drove the result:
No collection activity: The revocation wasn’t tied to collecting a prepetition debt. In fact, as of the petition date, there wasn’t even a matured “debt” to collect.
In a published decision that will reverberate through both the consumer bankruptcy and mortgage servicing worlds, the Fourth Circuit in affirmed summary judgment for mortgage servicers, holding that accurate, properly disclaimed, and timely mortgage communications sent during a Chapter 13 case are not “debt collection” under the FDCPA—and therefore do not violate the automatic stay.
The Facts (and the Fight)
Ruben Palazzo, a Chapter 13 debtor, received the familiar trio of communications from his mortgage servicer:
In Warren v. Cielo Ventures, the North Carolina Supreme Court delivers a sharply divided opinion on whether a contractual one-year limitation period can override the four-year statute of limitations for claims under the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA).
The majority (Justice Berger) answers that question with a firm yes.
The Figueroa v. Monsivais decision reads like a law school exam question—but with very real consequences for families who paid cash, moved in, and still ended up without title.
The Setup: Cash Paid, Possession Taken—But Nothing Recorded
What Judge Edwards has done in the DBMP decision—and what In re Wolbert foreshadowed years earlier—is to remind us that attorney-client privilege in bankruptcy is not a static shield. It is a conditional protection, one that can erode—sometimes quickly—once the debtor crosses the line from considering bankruptcy to committing to it.
