Summary:
Mr. Hutton’s vehicles were seized in a levy by the Onslow County Sheriff’s Department in executing on a judgment obtained by Principis. After filing bankruptcy, Mr. Hutton sought turnover of the vehicle and asserted that the possessory lien held by Principii had not been perfected by recordation with the North Carolina DMV.
In narrowly construing and distinguishing several decisions from the North Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, the bankruptcy court rejected the argument by Principis that recordation is required to perfect a lien under N.C.G.S.
Summary:
In determining whether Mr. Green was eligible, under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e), to be a Chapter 13 debtor due to debt limitations, the bankruptcy court reviewed several types of claims to determine whether each was “noncontingent” or “liquidated”.
While determination of whether a debt is “noncontingent” or “liquidated” is a question of law, See In re Goralnick, 81 B.R. 570, 571 (9th Cir. BAP 1987) the amount of a debt is a question of fact.
Summary:
In a case involving a hog farm and related claims of environmental pollution, Sound Rivers, Inc.’s and Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. sought an order confirming that the automatic stay does not apply or, in the alternative, for relief from the automatic stay in order to continue their lawsuit filed in the federal district Court.
Summary:
Mr. and Mrs. Regenhardt sought to claim their residence and the adjacent property as fully exempt under the available homestead exemption, with the Trustee asserting that the adjacent property was not part of the homestead and only partially exempt using their wildcard.
In reviewing the case law from the district, specifically In re Stox, No. 10-08123-8-RDD, 2011 WL 5902882, at *6 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. May 27, 2011) and In re Rogers, No. 16-02884-5-JNC, 2016 WL 5794707, at *4 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Oct.
Summary:
Ms. Mungo-Craig brought suit against Navient, first in state court and then after removal in federal district court, alleging violations of the FDCPA and North Carolina Debt Collection Act. The district court denied her motion to remand, finding that it did have federal question jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the FDCPA and supplemental jurisdiction for the other state law claims, as they arose from the same common nucleus of facts. It then granted the Motion to Dismiss brought by Navient finding that Ms.
Summary:
Mr. and Dr. Edwards, whose combined monthly gross income as health care professionals is $25722.67, filed Chapter 7, listing nearly $850,000 in general unsecured debts, which were primarily business debts. Dr. Dori Thomas, with whom Dr. Edwards had previously been in medical practice and was a co-guarantor, and Wells Fargo, which held a third lien for $695,000 against property, sought dismissal of the case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a), as § 707(b) did not apply since the Edwards did not have primarily consumer debts.
Following In re Marino, 388 B.R.
Summary:
In a counter to McDuffie v. West (In re West), No. 5:15-CV-557-FL, 2016 WL 4186853 (E.D.N.C. July 15, 2016), where the debtor testified solely as to the tax value for property, "but ... failed to provide any competent independent knowledge to establish as a basis for a court to accept the third-party assessment appraisal as the actual value of the subject property", in the present case Ms. Ward started by stating the tax value.
Summary:
Following the filing of Ms. Murphy’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy, her ex-husband, Mr. Kozek, brought an adversary proceeding against her for malicious prosecution, seeking both monetary damages and a determination that any such award was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). After a bench trial, to which both parties explicitly consented, the bankruptcy court found Ms. Murphy liable to Mr. Kozek in the amount of $8,274.94, which was nondischargeable. While the written judgment was pending, Ms.
