Summary: After falling delinquent on their mortgage payments to Wells Fargo in early 2010, the Hayletts sought a HAMP modification. After being supplied with initial documentation, Wells Fargo requested further information from the Hayletts on March 1, 2010, allowing ten days to respond. The Hayletts provided the requested documents on March 22, 2010, but Wells Fargo denied the request and proceeded to foreclosure.

Summary: Applying principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Assocs. Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953, 117 S.Ct. 1879 (1997), the Bankruptcy Court also found that it was appropriate to apply a minority discount when gauging the fair market value of the Corporate Holdings. To hold otherwise would give the best interest of the creditors a “punitive effect” on the Debtor by requiring payment of more than the fair market value of the assets in order to retain them.

Summary: The SEC filed a complaint against the Debtor and two other individuals in 2005 alleging they had engaged in a $60 million Ponzi scheme, specifically alleging that the Debtor unlawfully sold unregistered securities, was not registered as a broker-dealer when selling certain billboards, and failed to disclose material information to investors. In 2006, the Debtor and the SEC filed a consent judgment wherein the Debtor agreed to, among other terms, disgorge nearly $2 million.

Summary: The McClendons sought to purchase a home built by Jim Walters Homes (JWH) and financed by Walter Mortgage Company (WMC). Both the construction and the financing went through several permutations, with the size of the house, the amount of the loan, and the loan interest rate, increasing several times.

Summary: The District Court determined that the contract relating to the easement did not sufficiently describe the portion or parcel of the servient estate to be affected by the easement. On appeal, Rogers argued that the property description was sufficient because River Hills owned only one parcel of land at the time the writing was executed.

Summary: RTJJ is the largest owner of low-income housing in Gastonia. Following first the closure of area textile mills and then the housing crash, RTJJ became unable to pay its debts and faced foreclosure by Community One, its largest secured creditor. Despite proposing a Chapter 11 plan that would have paid creditors substantially more than a Chapter 7 liquidation, Community One objected to the plan and pressed for the sale of the assets.

Summary: Lee and Patsy Hilliard were married in 1975 and both served as officers of Royal Tours. Following their separation in 2008, the couple entered into a Separation Agreement whereby Patsy Hilliard resigned her position with Royal Tours and accepted a cash payment from Royal Tours in lieu of an Equitable Distribution consisting of 108 monthly payments of $3,500. The Chapter 7 Trustee alleged that the twelve payments made prior to the bankruptcy filing were preferences pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547.

Summary: Following Hice v. Hi-Mil, Inc., 301 N.C.

Abstract: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Stern v. Marshall has signaled a need to alter the bankruptcy court’s jurisdictional structure. In Stern, the Supreme Court ruled that bankruptcy judges, who lack the life tenure and salary protection of Article III, cannot issue final rulings in bankruptcy proceedings previously believed to be within their core jurisdiction.

Abstract: Since the price peak in 2006, home values have fallen more than 30%, leaving millions of Americans with negative equity in their homes. Until the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, the bankruptcy system would have provided many such homeowners with a remedy. They could have filed bankruptcy, discharged the negative equity, committed to pay the mortgage holders the full values of their homes, and retained those homes.