4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Summary: Following In re: Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for Dornier Aviation (North America), Inc., 453 F.3d 225 (2006), the Court of Appeals affirmed the recharacterization by bankruptcy court of an equity investment as debt.

Summary: Conteh brought suit against Shamrock and its attorney for filing a writ of execution that overstated the amount owed. The actual judgment balance was $1,583.96, but the writ of execution asserted that Conteh owed $1,748.98. Following Powell v. Palisades Acquisition, 782 F. 3d 119 (4th Cir. 2014) the Court of Appeal reiterated that Conteh’s actual response was not the relevant standard, but instead how “the least sophisticated consumer” would have understood the overstatement.

Summary: RDLG filed suit against Leonard alleging a pattern of fraudulent activity. Attorneys Lankford and Neyhart entered appearances for Leonard and were still attorneys-of-record when the district court set a pre-trial conference for October 3, 2012. On September 30, 2012, Lankford and Neyhart filed a motion seeking to both continue the October 3rd hearing and also to withdraw as counsel, due to both a lack of communication and payment from Leonard.

Summary: Ms. Kingery applied to Quicken Loans for a loan to refinance her home mortgage and gave permission for it to retrieve her credit reports. On May 3, 2010, Quicken Loan retrieved her tri-merge credit reports, which showed her credit scores and also that foreclosure had been commenced against her home. Based on the pending foreclosure, as shown by manually entered notes, Quicken Loans denied her refinance request. Subsequently, Quicken Loans transferred Ms. Kingery to its credit repair program. When that was unsuccessful, Quicken Loans sent Ms.

Summary: Ms. Powell incurred a credit card debt original with Direct Merchants. After losing her job, she fell into default and Platinum Financial, the assignee of the debt, obtained a judgment against Ms. Powell. Several years later, Platinum Financial sold the debt to Palisades Acquisition, whose attorney filed an Assignment of Judgment that erroneously stated the outstanding balance owed. Ms.

Summary: Homeowner’s association filed a Proof of Claim in the Debtor’s Chapter 13 case asserting that it was secured by a lien against the Debtor’s residence. The Debtor objected to the secured status as the HOA had not filed a Claim of Lien with the County Clerk of Court pursuant to the Planned Community Act (“PCA”) at N.C.G.S. § 47F-3-116(a). The HOA argued that its recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions was sufficient under common law to hold a secured claim without the filing of a Claim of Lien.

Summary: A provision of the Chapter 11 plan for National Heritage Foundation (“NHF”) provided that its officers, directors, and employees, the Unsecured Creditor Committee, and their successors and assigns (the “Released Parties”) were released from liability for any acts or omissions relating to NHF. Relying on Class Five Nevada Claimants v. Dow Corning Corp. (In re Dow Corning Corp.), 280 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 2002), the Fourth Circuit considered (and found the plan of NHF lacking) the following factors in determining the valid of a third-party release: 1.

Summary: The Chapter 11 Trustee sought to avoid and recover as preference, premium payments that Railworks transferred made to CPG within 90 days of filing bankruptcy, which later transferred them to TIG, which provided various insurance coverage to Railworks. While CPG had physical control over the transfers it received, it held the funds in trust for TIG. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

Olson raised FDCPA claims in federal court against Midland, which had brought a debt collection action in state court. These claims were asserted within a year of when Olson first appeared in the state court debt collection action, but more than a year after the alleged violations.

Summary: Fontell brought suit against her Homeowner’s Association (“HOA”)alleging violation of the FDCPA, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”). When the district court did not grant her summary judgment on these claims, she appealled. The Court of Appeals held that her assertion that the HOA violated the MCDCA by untimely bringing suit against her was not supported by evidence sufficient as a matter of law to grant summary judgment under Rule 56(a).