Summary: The Debtor, 71 years old, was married until her husband died in 1999. At the time of his death, he was the sole owner of a house and land, purchased in 1962, with a mortgage signed by both the Debtor and her husband, and which the Debtor later inherited, pursuant to his will. Upon filing bankruptcy, the Debtor sought to claim the increased “widow’s” exemption of $60,000 in the property, based on N.C.G.S.

Not only do payday lenders apparently spend generously on lobbyists,  but also seem to compensate  their lawyers rather nicely and without limit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw See:  Moses v. Cashcall

Summary: In a case involving multiple corporations and transfers back and forth from the Debtors’ household bank accounts and corporate accounts, the Trustee and a major creditor sought a denial of discharge against the debtors under 11 U.S.C. § 727. After reviewing and finding that the Debtors displayed several of the “badges of fraud”, see West v. Abdelaziz (In re Abdelaziz), 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 591, at *7-8 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Feb.

Summary: Despite being provided with evidence in the form of cancelled checks and insurance policies showing that they were not delinquent in their mortgage payments, Citimortgage commenced foreclosure against the Nances.  After refinancing their house, the Nances brought suit against Citimortgage alleging, among other causes of action,  unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and negligent and/or intentional damage to credit report.  Citimortgage moved to dismiss. As to the unfair and dec

Summary: Effective February 23, 2011, federal regulations may have settled the question about whether federal benefits, including Social Security and VA benefits, that are exempt from garnishment or execution by judgment creditors and bankruptcy trustees retain that exempt status if commingled with other non-exempt funds. 31 C.F.R. § 212.3 applies to garnishment, which is defined to include “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment or other legal process” (Emphasis added), which should include actions by a bankruptcy trustee.

Debt in America Abstract: Debt can be constructive, allowing people to build equity in homes or finance education, but it can also burden families into the future. Total debt is driven by mortgage debt; both are highly concentrated in high-cost housing markets, mostly along the coasts. Among Americans with a credit file, average total debt was $53,850 in 2013, but was substantially higher for people with a mortgage ($209,768) than people without a mortgage ($11,592). Non-mortgage debt, in contrast, is more spatially dispersed.

Summary: Fritz closed his account with Duke Energy when he moved, but was one week late in paying the final bill, so it was referred to a debt collector. He did pay the balance to Duke Energy, who applied the amount to the balance on his new utility bill. The debt collector was not informed of the payment and two months later, reported Fritz as delinquent to the three major credit bureaus, resulting in a 77 point decline in his credit score. Fritz brought suit against Duke Energy (as well as the debt collector under other bases) under N.C.G.S.

Summary: As evidence of the insolvency of the Debtor in support of a long-running preference action, the Trustee sought to introduce Affidavits from his paralegal, from the Director of Financial Services of one of the Debtor’s largest creditors, from the Examiner appointed in the case and from himself.

Summary: Prior to filing bankruptcy, the Meabons first consulted with an attorney who informed them that they would need to disclose, as an asset in his bankruptcy schedules, Richard Meabon’s interest in a trust. As a result of the first attorney’s advice, the Meabons chose to file with another attorney, to whom they did not disclose the existence of the trust. After filing Chapter 7 without disclosure of the trust either in their petition or at the §341 Meeting of Creditors, the deadline to object to discharge passed on June 1, 2010.

Summary: Plaintiffs brought suit against, among other, lenders that had financed mortgage loans for the development of investment properties, alleging that the appraisals conducted, which unanimously and uniformly valued real property lots, regardless of specific qualities or locations, for $500,000, the exact minimum to support the mortgage lender’s underwriting requirements, constituted both negligent underwriting and also an unfair trade practice. Following shortly after the Dallaire opinion from the North Carolina Supreme Court (see: