Summary:
Shortly before their divorce, the Plaintiff’s then wife obtained a credit card in his name, without his knowledge. Several years later, the Plaintiff discovered the credit card on his credit report and also began to receive collection letters and calls. These ceased until there was renewed collection activity (which is not described in the opinion) starting in January 2011, in response to which the Plaintiff retained counsel to demand verification of the debt.
Summary:
The Mecklenburg Clerk of Court authorized a foreclosure sale on September 29, 2010. There was no appeal of that order. Nearly a year later on August 8, 2011, the homeowner brought suit alleging that the foreclosure order had been premised on fraudulent documents, that the parties initiating the foreclosure had lacked any interest in the debt and lack of notice.
Summary:
The Plaintiff provided paving services for the Richmond Hills development starting in August 2005 and asserted that its date of last furnishing of materials was February 24, 2010. It filed a Claim of Lien on March 30, 2010, a month after the property was sold at foreclosure.
Summary:
In a dispute between Sun Trust Mortgage and United Guaranty, which insured against payment defaults on certain loans products, one of Sun Trust’s employees was found to have deliberately altered e-mails to manufacture documentary support for Sun Trust’s position in the dispute. The district court ordered Sun Trust to pay United Guaranty’s attorneys’ fees and costs related to the sanctions motion that was brought by United Guaranty, which had additionally sought dismissal of the entire suit.
Relying on United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462 (4th Cir.
Summary:
Affirmed the bankruptcy court opinion from In re Somerset Props. SPE, LLC, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1603, 56 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 88, 2012 WL 1230268 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2012) on the same grounds.
For a copy of the opinion, please see:MGHC Group v.
Summary:
The Deed of Trust held by BB&T against real property references a promissory note dated September 7, 2005. The actual promissory note, however, is dated September 8, 2005. Relying on Beaman v. Head (In re Head Grading Co.), 353 B.R.122, 123- 24 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006), the Debtors attacked the validity of the lien.
BB&T first argued that because the Debtor had executed a Change in Terms Agreement, explicitly affirming the note, it should be estopped from now contesting the enforceability.
Summary:
In attempting to set aside a foreclosure, Johnson brought numerous state and federal lawsuits against Bank of America, its attorneys, and the Substitute Trustee, alleging FDCPA, UDTPA, and other claims. All of these suits were eventually dismissed, with obtaining on two occasions Rule 11 sanctions for attorneys’ fees.
Summary:
The Homeowners argued that their mortgage closing was conducted by two non-attorneys, whose advice regarding their rights and obligations constituted the unauthorized practice of law under N.C.G.S. § 84-4. As such, relying on In re Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by Bradburn, 199 N.C. App. 549, 551, 681 S.E.2d 828 (2009), they argued that the contract was void and unenforceable.
In Bradburn, the Court of Appeals had found that a mortgage made by a broker unlicensed under N.C.G.S.
