Robert and Octavia Jones filed a joint income tax return for the year 2000. After they legally separated, the IRS audited the return and assessed a deficiency, which Robert Jones agreed to discharge through an installment payment plan. When he defaulted, however, the IRS began efforts to collect the deficiency from both Robert and Octavia Jones.  More than two years after the IRS first began its collection activities, Octavia Jones requested innocent spouse relief from her tax liability under I.R.C. § 6015(f).

The sole question presented is whether I.R.C.

The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of attorneys fees by the District Court,  finding that while only nominal actual damages were awarded,  attorneys fees were still allowed.

The Court of Appeals held that while Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) and Mercer v. Duke Univ., 401 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2005)  held that when a Plaintiff  "received only nominal damages, 'the only reasonable fee is . . . no fee at all.'” Quotiing Farrar, 506 U.S.

As the  FDCPA is concerned “with the substance of the transaction as opposed to the form”,  the 4th Circuit held that even assuming that the original 2004 debt was  a commercial loan, the later 2006 debt,  used to satisfy the original obligation,  was a consumer loan as it concerned the Plaintiff's personal finances, his personal residence, and was taken out in his own name. This case may also have value in determining whether a debtor "debts are primarily consumer debts"  under  11 U.S.C.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that "the Code plainly provides" that a debtor does not have to actually claim an exemption in order to use Code section 522(f) to avoid a judicial lien that impairs the exemption.

Real Property was owned by Walter Davis and his wife,  Shelvia Davis, as tenants by the entireties.  Deed of Trust listed "Walter Davis, A Married Man"  as the grantor,  but Shelvia Davis was both present at the closing and had signed and/or initialed several of the documents.

The Court of Appeals held that while Wachovia had failed to provide timely notice of the hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment,  the Davis's,  who appeared pro se,  had proper notice of the motion itself  and being present at the hearing  had not