Summary:

In this unpublished but instructive decision, Judge Wood (joined by Judges Stroud and Carpenter) affirmed the dismissal of an attempted “flip” real-estate buyer’s sprawling complaint after the collapse of a $2.7 million contract to buy the Seawatch at Sunset Harbor subdivision in Brunswick County.

Summary: 

In In re Ryan Lashon Ford, Judge Edwards issued two companion opinions chronicling the court’s escalating efforts to bring order to what she aptly described as an “atypical” pro se Chapter 7 case that had metastasized into a performative exercise in pseudo-law.

Available at:   https://ssrn.com/abstract=5215980

Abstract:

Summary:

Trenita Rogers bought her Winterville home in 2010, subject to the Irish Creek HOA. In 2021, after allegedly failing to pay $1,391.23 in assessments, the HOA filed liens and moved forward with foreclosure. Notice was attempted by certified mail during the USPS’s Covid-19 “contactless” protocol—where carriers often signed “C19” themselves instead of obtaining the addressee’s signature—and by sheriff posting without a proper court order.

Summary:

Following In re Owens and 

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: