Abstract: This Article explores a significant market-based threat to the Truth in Lending Act’s (“TILA”) right of rescission, a remedy that attempts to deter lender overreaching and fraud during one of the most complex financial transactions of a consumer’s lifetime.

Summary: In 2005, the Debtor paid Raleigh Plumbing & Heating (“RPH”) by check for a residential remodeling project for which the Debtor was a contractor. RPH confirmed with the Debtor’s bank the availability of funds and completed work. Three days later, RPH received notice that the Debtor had placed a stop payment on the check. RPH brought civil suit against the Debtor later in 2005, obtaining a judgment. In 2011, the Debtor filed Chapter 13 and RPH commenced an Adversary Proceeding seeking to have its claim declared non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

Summary: The Chapter 7 Trustee alleged that the Debtor, Total Realty Management (“TRM”), with the assistance and knowledge of R.A. North and its affiliates sold property in North and South Carolina at real estate seminars at inflated prices, falsely representing that the properties were owned by TRM, when they were , in fact owned by R.A. North. The Trustee sued R.A. North seeking statutory contribution from R.A.

Summary: Virginia Brands brought suit against Kingston Tobacco originally in Virginia state court, but the matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Following a Motion to pierce the corporate veil of Kingston Tobacco, Kingston filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought to have the matter removed to the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The bankruptcy court denied this motion to remove, holding that 11 U.S.C.

Summary: In this case, the bankruptcy court’s retelling of the facts (or allegations of facts) surrounding a failed friendship, a failed car wash and the ownership of a 1968 Ford Mustang could serve as a prospectus for a reality television show. The issue ultimately revolved around the validity of a replacement title obtained by Morgan from the DMV. The court held that the burden fell on Morgan to establish that the subsequent Title Application was valid.

Summary: Cashcall sought to withdraw its previously filed proof of claim and the Debtor objected, as such withdrawal would deprive the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to hear the objection to claim and other matters brought in an Adversary Proceeding. Applying Bankruptcy Rule 3006, the bankruptcy court held that as the Debtor had filed an Adversary Proceeding, withdrawal of the Proof of Claim would prejudice the Debtor by eliminating any jurisdiction the bankruptcy court had, subjecting the Debtor’s counterclaims to litigation in state court and arbitration.

Summary: Prior to filing Chapter 13, the Debtors entered into an Offer in Compromise (“OIC”) with the IRS, agreeing to make four installment payments of $1,000.00 each. After making the first due payment, the Debtors filed bankruptcy four months later and the IRS filed a secured claim for $21,033.15 and an unsecured claim for $83,289.35. The Debtors objected asserting that the IRS should remain bound by the terms of the OIC pursuant to the anti-discrimination provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 525(a).

Summary: The Chapter 13 Debtors owned 26 lots in the Waterside Villages, secured by a Deed of Trust to the Bank of Currituck, which had foreclosed on the properties on July 29, 2009. Waterside Villages filed a Proof of Claim asserting homeowners dues of $77,844.00. The Debtors objected to the Proof of Claim on basis that they had been denied access to the properties after Wachovia Bank foreclosed on the subdivision developer, preventing the Debtors from marketing the properties.

Summary: Chapter 13 Debtor brought an Adversary Proceeding against Cashcall, seeking a declaratory judgment that the debt owed to Cashcall (resulting from a $1,500.00 payday loan) was in violation of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-164 to -191 (2012) and alleging that Cashcall engaged in acts that qualify as Prohibited Acts by Debt Collectors under N.C. Gen. Stat.

Summary: The Debtor filed Chapter 13 and his plan was confirmed, with property of the estate re-vesting with the Debtor at that point. Subsequently, the Debtor fell into default with his homeowner’s dues. The Homeowner’s Association (“HOA”) file a Motion for Relief from the Stay seeking both relief from the stay and attorney’s fees. The Debtor admitted the default, but contested the attorneys’ fees as being unnecessary. Relying on In re Jones, 339 B.R. 360, 365 (Bankr. E.D.N.C.