Summary:
MGHC filed a Proof of Claim, which was allowed as late-filed for $6 million, arising from lawsuit over a failed land development in New Jersey, where MGHC had provided funding to Mill Ridge Farms, whose principal, Kevin Wilk is is the managing member of Somerset Properties. MGHC had sued Mill Ridge Farms, Kevin Wilks and Somerset Properties alleging a civil conspiracy to convert property of and defraud MGHC, using funds intended for a New Jersey development project to finance the purchase of property in North Carolina for Wilk.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013
Summary:
The Debtors guaranteed a $765,440.00 bridge loan with an adjustable interest rate, with range between 14% and 28%, and a 12 month term, with an option to extend the note for an additional 12 months. The Debtors filed Chapter 11 and proposed a 30-year amortization rate at 5% interest, to which the lender objected both as to the interest rate and the new term.
At hearing, an expert in commercial real estate testified that there was no effective market for this loan, so the bankruptcy court turned to the formula approach outlined in Till v.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013
Summary:
In December 2005, the Eichorns were seeking to purchase a home and entered hired Preferred Carolinas Realty (“PCR”) and James Allen to represent them in the process. The Eichorns wer shown property located in Wake Forest, North Carolina (''the property") and were told by PCR that it was owned by Toth Building Company, when it was, in fact, owned by Rodgers. Following negotiations through PCR, the Eichorns signed as sales contract with Toth, although Rodgers, the true owner of the property, had no knowledge of it.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013
Summary:
The Debtor was involved in a lawsuit Gennaro Vitale, Gary Annino, and GG Mirage, LLC (a limited liability company owned by Annino) relating to business and financial issues which had arisen between those parties (the “GG Mirage lawsuit”). That lawsuit was settled, subject to a confidentiality provision. Subsequently, Designer Glass sought production of the settlement agreement, first in state court and, following the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing, obtained a copy through an ex parte motion pursuant to Rule 2004, without serving such motion on Vitale or Annino.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013
Summary:
The Debtor, who suffers from a learning disability, called telephone directory assistance asking to be connected with “legal aid.” The operator connected him with “Legal Aid Alternatives”, which then referred him Glenda Ocasio. Ms Ocasio charge the Debtor $399 to prepare his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. She told the Debtor that she would be representing him in the bankruptcy case, that he would be able to keep all of his assets; that he did not need an attorney; that he should file under chapter 7; and that all of his debts would be discharged. Ms.
By Ed Boltz, 18 January, 2013
Summary:
In 2005, the Debtor paid Raleigh Plumbing & Heating (“RPH”) by check for a residential remodeling project for which the Debtor was a contractor. RPH confirmed with the Debtor’s bank the availability of funds and completed work. Three days later, RPH received notice that the Debtor had placed a stop payment on the check. RPH brought civil suit against the Debtor later in 2005, obtaining a judgment. In 2011, the Debtor filed Chapter 13 and RPH commenced an Adversary Proceeding seeking to have its claim declared non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
By Ed Boltz, 7 January, 2013
Summary:
Virginia Brands brought suit against Kingston Tobacco originally in Virginia state court, but the matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Following a Motion to pierce the corporate veil of Kingston Tobacco, Kingston filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought to have the matter removed to the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The bankruptcy court denied this motion to remove, holding that 11 U.S.C.
By Ed Boltz, 7 January, 2013
Summary:
Cashcall sought to withdraw its previously filed proof of claim and the Debtor objected, as such withdrawal would deprive the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to hear the objection to claim and other matters brought in an Adversary Proceeding.
Applying Bankruptcy Rule 3006, the bankruptcy court held that as the Debtor had filed an Adversary Proceeding, withdrawal of the Proof of Claim would prejudice the Debtor by eliminating any jurisdiction the bankruptcy court had, subjecting the Debtor’s counterclaims to litigation in state court and arbitration.
By Ed Boltz, 7 January, 2013
Summary:
Prior to filing Chapter 13, the Debtors entered into an Offer in Compromise (“OIC”) with the IRS, agreeing to make four installment payments of $1,000.00 each. After making the first due payment, the Debtors filed bankruptcy four months later and the IRS filed a secured claim for $21,033.15 and an unsecured claim for $83,289.35. The Debtors objected asserting that the IRS should remain bound by the terms of the OIC pursuant to the anti-discrimination provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 525(a).
By Ed Boltz, 7 January, 2013
Summary:
The Chapter 13 Debtors owned 26 lots in the Waterside Villages, secured by a Deed of Trust to the Bank of Currituck, which had foreclosed on the properties on July 29, 2009. Waterside Villages filed a Proof of Claim asserting homeowners dues of $77,844.00.
The Debtors objected to the Proof of Claim on basis that they had been denied access to the properties after Wachovia Bank foreclosed on the subdivision developer, preventing the Debtors from marketing the properties.