Summary:

Mrs.  Warren’s husband died, owing a debt on a credit card to BB&T.  Despite the credit card only being in the deceased husband’s name, BB&T, through its attorneys, Sessoms & Rogers, attempted on numerous occasions to collect the debt from Mrs.  Warren.

Summary: Property Agreement provided that the Debtor would be primarily liable for the mortgage debt and "[t]o the extent of any obligation contained herein is discharged in bankruptcy and the non-bankrupt party is held liable for said debt, the non-bankrupt party shall have the right to petition a court of competent jurisdiction for spousal support in an amount sufficient to cover any amounts so discharged."  The Debtor, of course, filed Chapter 13 and disputed whether this created a domestic support obligation under 11 U.S.C.

Summary: Ocwen filed a Motion for Relief from Stay.  At the hearing, the Debtor testified she was under a loan modification with Ocwen and provided copies of the loan modification agreement and bank account statements showing that payments under the loan modification had been made.  Ocwen provided absolutely no evidence to support its position that the Debtor was in default. In addition to denying the Motion for Relief from Stay, sua sponte, the Bankruptcy Court has ordered Ocwen to show cause why it should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 9011(c)(1)(B)

Summary: In a property dispute between a sister, Ms.  Lee, and her brother, Mr.  Anasti, over real estate in South Carolina, Ms.  Lee sought to assert superior title to Mr.  Anasti though adverse possession.  This matter was first commenced in South Carolina state court, but when Ms.  Lee filed Chapter 7, later converting to Chapter 13,  and brought an adversary proceeding asserting both adverse possession and seeking to avoid any interest Mr.  Anasti had pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

Summary: Capital One commenced a foreclosure against the Debtors on a Deed of Trust, originally granted to Chevy Chase Bank, which later merged with Capital One.  The foreclosure was allowed in part based on, among other documents, an Affidavit from James Cox, Vice President of Capital One.  This Affidavit stated that "to the best of [his] knowledge" Capital One was the servicer and holder of the mortgage note. The Debtors objected to this affidavit, arguing that it denoted only Mr.  Cox’s personal opinion and was not made upon personal knowledge as required b

Summary: Arguing that debt pre-dates actual money as the basis of human economic life, this book views the last 5,000 years of lending and monetary policy through the lense of  anthropology, assessing concepts from ancient debt slavery to the current mortgage crisis like practices and traditions from foreign cultures.  The author, an outspoken anarchist, who is also one of the central thinkers behind the Occupy Wall Street movement, uses detailed historical and sociological evidence to show that despite the assumptions of Adam Smith and the explicit statements

Summary: The Chapter 11 Plan for LLM provided that for the eventual reamortization of two notes, partially based on cash flow.  Ten years later when it came to recapitalize  the notes,  LLM and the note holder disagreed by nearly $5 million on the amount. Each party presented evidence from their separate accountants.  The note holder's accountant, however, included hypothetical figures into her calculation for "demonstrative purposes" and the court found there was no factual basis for these asserted amounts.

Summary: The Debtor's mother signed the Debtor's signature on 11 student loans.  After filing bankruptcy, the Debtor objected to the validity of the claims. The Court began by reiterating that under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b0, ‘[claims that are unenforceable against the debtor or against property of the debtor . . . are simply not allowable for purposes of a right to share in a distribution of the debtor's assets." In re Easthaven Marina Group, LLC, No. 08-05453-8-JRL (Bankr. E.D.N.C. May 7, 2009) (Leonard, J) (quoting 4 Collier on Bankruptcy (15th ed.

Summary: The Debtors are the owners of real property in Vandemere, North Carolina and a mobile home that sits at that location, but is  personal property.  The Debtors claimed both as exempt under their homestead.  A judgment creditor objected that this was not the residence of the Debtors and that the Debtors had not obtained the necessary permits to place the mobile home at the property. The Debtors testified that they were currently not residing on the property, partly because the Male Debtor required dialysis that was not available locally and also because

Summary: The Chapter 7 Debtors failed to disclose in their petition their interests in various real estate partnerships and multiple foreclosure proceedings, which the Chapter 7 Trustee discovered through reviewing the Debtors’ tax return and public records.  The Debtors then sought to convert to Chapter 13 and the Chapter 7 Trustee objected. The Court held the Debtors  initial schedules were so misleading as to give rise to an inference  of bad faith, which in turn prevents conversion. Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S.