Summary: Mr. Rusnack and his then-wife, opened a home equity line of credit (HELOC) with Cardinal Bank in August 2003. Between 2003 and 2006, the Rusnacks periodically drew on the HELOC using checks issued by Cardinal Bank. On June 22, 2006, shortly after the Rusnacks separated, Mr. Rusnack directed Cardinal Bank in writing to freeze further advances from the HELOC and Cardinal Bank acknowledge such freeze. Despite this, Cardinal Bank honored two checks each in the amount of $10,000 from Ms. Rusnack on July 26, 2006, and September 12, 2006.

Summary: The Daughterys purchased their home in 1999, with a 15-year balloon note payable in July 2014 in the amount of $82,666.36.  In 2012, the Daughterys had fallen $6,128.39 behind on the regular payments and Ocwen, who had become the mortgage servicer after the first default by the Daughterys, commenced foreclosure, reporting accurately the delinquency and foreclosure proceeding.

Summary: In a case involving a hog farm and related claims of environmental pollution, Sound Rivers, Inc.’s and Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. sought an order confirming that the automatic stay does not apply or, in the alternative, for relief from the automatic stay in order to continue their lawsuit filed in the federal district Court.

Summary: Mr. and Mrs. Regenhardt sought to claim their residence and the adjacent property as fully exempt under the available homestead exemption, with the Trustee asserting that the adjacent property was not part of the homestead and only partially exempt using their wildcard. In reviewing the case law from the district, specifically In re Stox, No. 10-08123-8-RDD, 2011 WL 5902882, at *6 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. May 27, 2011) and In re Rogers, No. 16-02884-5-JNC, 2016 WL 5794707, at *4 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Oct.

  Summary: Default Judgment was entered in favor of Ms. Deal for violations of the FDCPA by Trinity Hope Associates, which failed to respond to the Complaint. Commentary: The only aspect that is interesting is that this is a 10-page opinion finding default, where the defendant did not answer. For a copy of the opinion, please see: Deal v.

Summary: Ms. Mungo-Craig brought suit against Navient, first in state court and then after removal in federal district court, alleging violations of the FDCPA and North Carolina Debt Collection Act. The district court denied her motion to remand, finding that it did have federal question jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the FDCPA and supplemental jurisdiction for the other state law claims, as they arose from the same common nucleus of facts. It then granted the Motion to Dismiss brought by Navient finding that Ms.

Summary: Mr.

Summary: Mr. and Dr. Edwards, whose combined monthly gross income as health care professionals is $25722.67, filed Chapter 7, listing nearly $850,000 in general unsecured debts, which were primarily business debts. Dr. Dori Thomas, with whom Dr. Edwards had previously been in medical practice and was a co-guarantor, and Wells Fargo, which held a third lien for $695,000 against property, sought dismissal of the case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a), as § 707(b) did not apply since the Edwards did not have primarily consumer debts. Following In re Marino, 388 B.R.

Summary: In a counter to McDuffie v. West (In re West), No. 5:15-CV-557-FL, 2016 WL 4186853 (E.D.N.C. July 15, 2016), where the debtor testified solely as to the tax value for property, "but ... failed to provide any competent independent knowledge to establish as a basis for a court to accept the third-party assessment appraisal as the actual value of the subject property", in the present case Ms. Ward started by stating the tax value.

Summary: In an unfulfilled business agreement, over a period of fourteen (14) years, Medflow, Inc. never made any royalty payments, never provided a written sales reports ,and never obtained consent for restricted sales. When Christenbury Eye Center, P.A. brought suit for such, the trial court dismissed the case as the various claims were stale under the applicable Statutes of Limitations.