Summary:

In this case, a veteran found his home purchase delayed because Experian could not generate his credit report—an error caused by Experian’s system refusing to recognize his legal last name, “K.” As a result, he was forced into a higher-rate variable mortgage and an extra month of rent. He sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Summary:

Three North Carolina homeowners brought a putative class action against Selene Finance, alleging that Selene’s standardized “default and intent to accelerate” letters violated the FDCPA, the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, and the North Carolina Collection Agencies Act. They also asserted negligent misrepresentation under state law. Selene moved to dismiss.

Summary and Commentary (In re Gilbert, W.D.N.C. 2025)

Russell Wade Gilbert filed his third Chapter 13 case in just over fourteen months, all pro se and without an attorney. His first case (June 2024) was dismissed for failure to propose a feasible plan, make initial payments, and file required tax returns. His second case (November 2024) was dismissed in July 2025 for defaulting on plan payments. Just six weeks later, he filed the present case in August 2025.

Summary:

Summary:

Available at:   www.ablj.org/the-supreme-court-and-the-discharge-of-debts-in-consumer-bankruptcy-cases-vol-99-issue-2-pdf/

Abstract:

Available at:   www.ablj.org/the-supreme-court-and-the-discharge-of-debts-in-consumer-bankruptcy-cases-vol-99-issue-2-pdf/

Abstract:

Summary:

Judge Kenneth D. Bell’s denial of Navient’s motion for summary judgment in Ready v. Navient (W.D.N.C. No. 5:24-cv-00050) is a sharp reminder that even student loan creditors must prove the underlying debt. Navient insisted that Ms. Christy Ready had taken out a 1995 consolidation loan through “Citibank (NYS)” which was later rolled into a 2002 consolidation. Ms.

Summary:

Summary:

Brad Hurd purchased a 2018 Honda Accord from Priority Automotive Huntersville for $26,400. Unbeknownst to him, the vehicle had been in an accident in 2017, while still a dealership demonstrator, with repairs exceeding $10,000 (more than 25% of the car’s value). North Carolina law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-71.4, required disclosure of such damage. Instead, Priority affirmatively answered “NO” on the damage disclosure statement and gave Hurd a purchase agreement with the wrong VIN.