Summary: In November of 2005, Arlington Hills executed a promissory note and Deed of Trust for $596,345, with such currently being held by Wells Fargo. Thereafter, John & Beverly Cobb, Max & Christy Smith, and Mark Carpenter executed personally guarantees for the note in order to obtain renewals and modifications of the terms. When Arlington Hills defaulted the balance on the note was nearly $2 million, Wells Fargo initiated both a foreclosure and suit against both Arlington Hills and the several guarantors.

Summary: Perry executed a note and Deed of Trust in favor of American Home Mortgage (AHM), with two individuals named as Trustees and MERS named as the beneficiary and “solely as nominee” for AHM. Citimortgage acquired the mortgage through an endorsement by AHM.

Summary: On June 17, 2010, Waddington Ridge HOA filed a claim of lien against Dong’s residence and then filed a notice of foreclosure hearing on July 22, 2010. At that hearing, the Clerk of Court allowed the foreclosure to proceed and the sale was held on November 2, 2010, with the foreclosure deed being recorded on February 17, 2011. Dong filed a motion for relief from the foreclosure order on October 31, 2011, and the trial court ultimately concluded that Dong had not received proper notice and, pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P.

Summary: Under North Carolina’s New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act, N.C.G.S. § § 20-351, a motor vehicle manufacturer is required to either repurchase or refund the purchase price if “after a reasonable number of attempts” the vehicle cannot be repaired to conform with express warranties. N.C.G.S. § 20-351.5 creates a presumption that the manufacturer has failed if it attempts to repair the vehicle four or more times. The consumer must have notified the manufacturer in writing of the defect and allowed up to fifteen (15) days to make repairs.

Summary: Having previously found that several claims brought by the Debtor against Bank of America were, pursuant to Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), core and subject to bankruptcy court jurisdiction, while others were “statutorily core, but did not qualify as constitutionally core”, the bankruptcy court retained the core issues and referred the non-core claims to arbitration.

Summary: Husband and Wife filed Chapter 7, with the Wife claiming both an equitable interest in a 2006 Lexus, despite not being listed as an owner on the title, and claiming an exemption. The Trustee objected, relying on In re Horstman, 276 B.R. 80 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2002), where the bankruptcy court held that a debtor could not claim an exemption in a vehicle, titled in her husband’s name only, based on the definition of “marital property.” This proposition was expanded in In re Thams, No. 10–33089, 2011 WL 863293, at *4 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Mar.

Summary: In several related Chapter 7 cases, the Debtors exemptions included a provision relying on Schwab v. Reilly, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2652 (2010), that they “intend[ed] to claim 100% of Debtors’ interest and 100% fair market value in each and every item listed, irrespective of the actual value claimed as exempt.” Following objections by the Chapter 7 Trustee, the Debtors, still seeking to maximize their exemptions, amended their exemptions to include a provision that contemplated three separate scenarios: 1.

Summary: The Debtors brought a Motion for Sanctions against Sun Trust, serving the motion by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the attention of the “Officer or Managing Agent” at the address listed on the Proof of Claim filed by Sun Trust, at the address listed on the billing statements and one additional address.

Summary: The creditor had obtained a judgment against the debtor, with such judgment still being on appeal. The creditor, nonetheless, filed a Proof of Claim in the debtor’s Chapter 11 case, to which the debtor objection. Read together, 11 U.S.C. § 502(a) and 1126(a) prohibit a claimant from voting on a Chapter 11 plan if the debtor has objected to the claim. Bankruptcy Rule 3018(a), however, allows the bankruptcy court, at its sound discretion, to temporarily allow the claim for purposes of accepting or rejecting the proposed plan.

Summary: ESA Environmental Specialists, Inc. (ESA) was an engineering firm that had various constructions projects under contract with the federal government. As such, ESA was required to obtain surety bonds to secured completion of the contracts and pay vendors and subcontractors. ESA originally obtained eight surety bonds from Hanover in 2006. In April 2007, ESA borrowed $12.2 million from Prospect Capital to fund operations. Shortly, thereafter, ESA sought seven additional surety bonds from Hanover.