Summary: United Marketing Solutions (UMS) obtained a judgment against the Fowlers for $106,076.82. Subsequently, Rees Associates obtained a judgment against UMS for $172,194.94. Rees then initiated garnishment proceeding against the Fowlers, but then entered into a Settlement and Release with the Fowlers which called for the Fowlers to pay Rees “the sum of $ ___ upon execution of this Agreement in full and complete satisfaction of the Garnishment.

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.

Summary: In a dispute between Sun Trust Mortgage and United Guaranty, which insured against payment defaults on certain loans products, one of Sun Trust’s employees was found to have deliberately altered e-mails to manufacture documentary support for Sun Trust’s position in the dispute. The district court ordered Sun Trust to pay United Guaranty’s attorneys’ fees and costs related to the sanctions motion that was brought by United Guaranty, which had additionally sought dismissal of the entire suit. Relying on United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462 (4th Cir.

Summary: The Court of Appeals held that arbitration rider in mortgage refinance agreement did not render consumer's right to rescind credit transaction unclear or non-conspicuous under TILA. For a copy of the opinion, please see: Klein v. Household Realty- Arbitration Rider did not Render Rescission Notice invalid under TILA.pdf

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.