Summary:
The Debtors had initially disclosed in their petition that they anticipated receiving tax refunds for 2008 totaling $3,000.00. The actually received $11,194.00, but failed to notify either the Chapter 13 Trustee or their attorney.
After failing to obtain confirmation of their original Chapter plan, which sought to strip-off a junior mortgage held by State Employee's Credit Union, a the Debtors proposed a plan releasing their residence to SECU. Under the new plan, no funds would be paid to SECU, which accordingly sought and obtained an order allowin
Summary:
The Debtor was a personal guarantor of 10 contracts between John Deere and his corporation, PEP, for the purchase of construction equipment. Prior to filing bankruptcy, the Debtor sold 5 of the pieces of equipment to third parties, without the consent of John Deere.
John Deere then instituted an action pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) to except from discharge this debt, asserting that it arose from a "willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity." Following In re Buck, 406 B.R. 703 (Bankr.
Canovali-Relief from Chapter 11 Confirmation Order under Rule 60(b)Summary:
The Debtors had a two mortgage against their home, initially valued in the amount of $1,068,000.00, with Bank of America, a first with a balance of $988,000.00 and second with a balance of $368,000.00.
The Debtors proposed a Chapter 11 plan that recognized that there were two notes and Deeds of Trust, but that both such claims would be paid as a s
Summary:
The Debtor filed Chapter 13, during which Friedman’s Jewelers filed a Proof of Claim, asserting that it was secured in the amount of $300.00 and unsecured for the balance. The Debtor subsequently converted to Chapter 7, then re-converted to Chapter 13, eventually confirming a plan treating Friedman’s as secured in the amount of $300.00.
Friedman’s itself filed bankruptcy and its assets were liquidated, with the Debtor’s account being purchased by Merchant’s Acquisition Group, L.L.C. (MAG). MAG retained BRM Recovery Services to collect on this accou
Summary:
Deluxe Cleaners originally filed Chapter 11 in the Eastern District of North Carolina, but venue was shortly thereafter transferred to the Middle District of North Carolina. A related bankruptcy, filed by the Parks (who owned Deluxe Cleaners) was filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Thus began a cross-district tangle.
Prior to the filing of either bankruptcy, Deluxe Cleaners and the Parks obtained a judgment against Forrest Investment Group. As part of the Deluxe Cleaners bankruptcy, assets were sold to Forrest Investment and this
In 2004, Ms. Willis signed a will, stating that if she conveyed her residence to her son, Eddie, before her death, that it was her wish that if he sold the property, he divide the proceeds with his brother, Anthony. Subsequently, Ms. Willis transferred a remainder interest in the the residence to Eddie, but did not include any reversionary interest. Eddie then died intestate and Ms. Willis sought to reform the Deed to prevent the property from passing to Eddie’s children, arguing that the Deed to Eddie was a unila
This paper looks at the extent that differences in foreclosure and bankruptcy laws can jointly explain variation in default rates across states. The author finds that more generous homestead exemptions raise the cost of unsecured borrowing. Households in states with high exemptions therefore hold less unsecured and more mortgage debt compared to low exemption states, which leads to lower bankruptcy rates but higher foreclosure rates.
Answer a Complaint filed by Wells Fargo in North Carolina Superior Court, Stonebridge asserted several counterclaims. When Stonebridge later filed Chapter 11, the state court action was removed to bankruptcy court. Following the heightened pleading standards of Iqbal/Twombley, Wells Fargo sought dismissal of the counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state claims for relief that were facially plausible. Stonebridge argued that the more permissive North Carolina pleading standards sho
Summary:
In a dispute regarding a failed real estate development, Stonebridge asserted a breach of contract claim. In response, NVR argued that a liquidated damages provision limited its liability for damages. The Bankruptcy Court found that Stonebridge could not complain that a negotiated liquidated damages provision was insufficient or invalid. The Bankruptcy Court also rejected the assertion by Stonebridge that NVR was required to indemnify economic damages, finding that the contract between the parties required indemnification of "damage to property and
