Skip to main content
Home

Main navigation

  • NC Bankruptcy Cases
    • Eastern District
    • Middle District
    • Western District
  • NC Courts
    • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
    • NC Court of Appeals
    • NC Business Court
    • NC Supreme Court Cases
  • Federal Cases
  • Law Reviews & Studies
    • Book Reviews
  • NC Legislative History
  • Student Loan Debt
User account menu
  • Log in
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Ramadan- Rule 2004 Production of Confidential Settlement Agreements

Summary: The Debtor was involved in a lawsuit Gennaro Vitale, Gary Annino, and GG Mirage, LLC (a limited liability company owned by Annino) relating to business and financial issues which had arisen between those parties (the “GG Mirage lawsuit”). That lawsuit was settled, subject to a confidentiality provision.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013

4th Circuit: Klein v. Household Realty- Arbitration Rider did not Render Rescission Notice invalid under TILA

Summary: The Court of Appeals held that arbitration rider in mortgage refinance agreement did not render consumer's right to rescind credit transaction unclear or non-conspicuous under TILA. For a copy of the opinion, please see: Klein v. Household Realty- Arbitration Rider did not Render Rescission Notice invalid under TILA.pdf
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Johnson - Bankruptcy Petition Preparer

Summary: The Debtor, who suffers from a learning disability, called telephone directory assistance asking to be connected with “legal aid.” The operator connected him with “Legal Aid Alternatives”, which then referred him Glenda Ocasio. Ms Ocasio charge the Debtor $399 to prepare his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. She told the Debtor that she would be representing him in the bankruptcy case, that he would be able to keep all of his assets; that he did not need an attorney; that he should file under chapter 7; and that all of his debts would be discharged. Ms.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013

Law Review: Shepard- It’s All about the Principal: Preserving Consumers’ Right of Rescission under the Truth in Lending Act

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.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: Raleigh Plumbing & Heating v. Lamanna- Dischargeability from Bad Check under 11 U.S.C.§ § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B)

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.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013

4th Circuit: Ross v. R.A. North Development (In re Total Realty Management) - Liability under the Interstate Land Sales Act

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.
By Ed Boltz, 7 January, 2013

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: Virginia Brands, L.L.C. v. Kingston Tobacco Company, Inc.- Removal of Matter only to the district court for the district where the civil action was pending

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.
By Ed Boltz, 7 January, 2013

Bankr. M.D.N.C.: In re Markey- Burden of Proving Ownership; Deadlines for Filing Proof of Claim and Objection to Discharge/Dischargeability

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.
By Ed Boltz, 7 January, 2013

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Moses- Withdrawal of Proof of Claim Denied

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.
By Ed Boltz, 7 January, 2013

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Mead- Validity of Pre-Petition Offer in Compromise of IRS Claim

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).

Pagination

  • First page
  • Previous page
  • …
  • Page 71
  • Page 72
  • Page 73
  • Page 74
  • Page 75
  • …
  • Next page
  • Last page
Drupal blog posts

About Us

Mountain View The purpose of the NC Bankruptcy Expert blog is to provide legal professionals with a consolidated resource for updates and case summaries about issues and decisions affecting bankruptcy, foreclosures, mortgages, and debt collection.

 
Lawyer Edward Boltz | Top Attorney Chapter 7

NC Bankruptcy Expert FREE Consultation

We Offer A Free Bankruptcy Consultation which has helped over 70,000 North Carolina families. We serve the entire state of North Carolina.

Proud Member of:












Categories

  • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Book Reviews
  • District Courts
  • Eastern District
  • Ed Boltz: Bankruptcy Attorney
  • Federal Cases
  • Forms
  • Home
  • Law Reviews & Studies
  • Middle District
  • Mortgage Modification Mediation Documents
  • NC Business Court
  • NC Court of Appeals
  • NC Courts
  • NC Supreme Court Cases
  • News
  • North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases
  • North Carolina District Court Cases
  • North Carolina Exemptions Legislative History
  • Student Loan Debt
  • Student Loan Options and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
  • Western District
RSS feed
v. 1.2.2, © 2013-2025 ncbankruptcyexpert.com, all rights reserved. Follow @edboltz