Summary:
The Chapter 7 Trustee alleged that the Debtor, Total Realty Management (“TRM”), with the assistance and knowledge of R.A. North and its affiliates sold property in North and South Carolina at real estate seminars at inflated prices, falsely representing that the properties were owned by TRM, when they were , in fact owned by R.A. North. The Trustee sued R.A. North seeking statutory contribution from R.A.
Summary:
Ms. McLean was first admitted to ManorCare, a nursing home, in July 2006, signing a contract (through her son, James McLean, who held her Power of Attorney) agreeing to all costs, including attorneys’ fees, for collection of unpaid amounts. The contract provided that it would remain in effect if she was discharged but re-admitted within 15 days. In 2007, following her discharged from the nursing home, Mr. Ray sued Ms. McLean on behalf of ManorCare, with the matter being resolved by the parties.
Ms.
Summary:
The Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiff had failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the TILA because her proposed reading of the notice disclosing the number and due dates of payments due under that transaction is not objectively reasonable. Further, because the disclosure to the Plaintiff of her right to cancel the 2007 credit transaction contained all of the information required by the TILA, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1635(a)-(b), and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R.
Summary:
Through requests submitted to the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) under the state Freedom of Information Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 30-4-10 to -165 (FOIA), Michael E. Spears, Esq., Gedney M. Howe, III, Esq., Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq., and A. Camden Lewis, Esq.
Summary:
The Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan proposed the surrender of an ATV, but she nonetheless took a deduction, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(iii), for the payments due on this secured obligation. Finding that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464 (2010), allows a bankruptcy court to “ account for changes in the debtor’s income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation." Id. at 2478 (Emphasis added), the 4th Circuit disallowed the deduction from the Debtor’s “projected disposable income” under 11 U.S.C.
Summary:
Following foreclosure and bankruptcy, the Debtors raised claims against Bayview under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The statute of limitations provides that:
With respect to violations arising from other consumer credit sales or consumer loans, no action pursuant to this subsection may be brought more than one year after the due date of the last scheduled payment of the agreement. W. Va.
Sun Trust sued to collect on deficiencies following a foreclosure in North Carolina. The Debtors raised defenses challenging the validity of the debt and the default. The Court of Appeals held that the determination of a valid debt and default at the foreclosure hearing was res judicata. While the Debtors could not have raised these equitable defenses in the hearing under N.C.G.S. § 45-21.16, they could have raised such defenses in a proceeding to enjoin the foreclosure under N.C.G.S.
Debtor was the beneficiary of two Spendthrift Trusts. The Spendthrift Trusts, which were governed by Pennsylvania law, protected both the income and corpus/principal of the trusts for the beneficiaries. As such, 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) provides that "[a] restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law is enforceable in a case under this title" and the trusts were outside the reach of the bankruptcy estate.
The Debtors executed an adjustable rate mortgage note on May 5, 2006, and received several disclosures, including a Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement, a Notice of Right to Cancel, a Variable Rate Mortgage Program Disclosure, a HUD-1 Settlement Statement and a First Payment Letter.
