Summary: Following a determination of the appropriate interest rate to pay on a secured claim, the creditor filed a Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 59(e).  The reconsideration of an order, the moving party must show:

1. An intervening change in controlling law;
2. New evidence not available at trial; or
3. A clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.

In essence finding that the secured creditor was merely seeking to relitigate the issue, the Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration, finding (again) that its previous ruling

Summary: The Debtors’ home was damaged by Hurricane Irene while they were in Chapter 13.  Their insurance issued a check for damages in the amount of $9,052.93 to the house and a second check for $1,376.54 for personal property, both payable jointly to the Debtors and Chase, the mortgage servicer. The Debtors followed the instructions on Chase’s website for insurance checks in the amount less than $20,000.00, endorsing the check and forwarding it to Chase, believing that since they were current on their Chapter 13 payments, Chase would expeditiously return the money to

Summary: Property Agreement provided that the Debtor would be primarily liable for the mortgage debt and "[t]o the extent of any obligation contained herein is discharged in bankruptcy and the non-bankrupt party is held liable for said debt, the non-bankrupt party shall have the right to petition a court of competent jurisdiction for spousal support in an amount sufficient to cover any amounts so discharged."  The Debtor, of course, filed Chapter 13 and disputed whether this created a domestic support obligation under 11 U.S.C.

Summary: Ocwen filed a Motion for Relief from Stay.  At the hearing, the Debtor testified she was under a loan modification with Ocwen and provided copies of the loan modification agreement and bank account statements showing that payments under the loan modification had been made.  Ocwen provided absolutely no evidence to support its position that the Debtor was in default. In addition to denying the Motion for Relief from Stay, sua sponte, the Bankruptcy Court has ordered Ocwen to show cause why it should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 9011(c)(1)(B)

Summary: The Chapter 11 Plan for LLM provided that for the eventual reamortization of two notes, partially based on cash flow.  Ten years later when it came to recapitalize  the notes,  LLM and the note holder disagreed by nearly $5 million on the amount. Each party presented evidence from their separate accountants.  The note holder's accountant, however, included hypothetical figures into her calculation for "demonstrative purposes" and the court found there was no factual basis for these asserted amounts.

Summary: The Debtor's mother signed the Debtor's signature on 11 student loans.  After filing bankruptcy, the Debtor objected to the validity of the claims. The Court began by reiterating that under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b0, ‘[claims that are unenforceable against the debtor or against property of the debtor . . . are simply not allowable for purposes of a right to share in a distribution of the debtor's assets." In re Easthaven Marina Group, LLC, No. 08-05453-8-JRL (Bankr. E.D.N.C. May 7, 2009) (Leonard, J) (quoting 4 Collier on Bankruptcy (15th ed.

Summary: The Debtors are the owners of real property in Vandemere, North Carolina and a mobile home that sits at that location, but is  personal property.  The Debtors claimed both as exempt under their homestead.  A judgment creditor objected that this was not the residence of the Debtors and that the Debtors had not obtained the necessary permits to place the mobile home at the property. The Debtors testified that they were currently not residing on the property, partly because the Male Debtor required dialysis that was not available locally and also because

Summary: The Chapter 7 Debtors failed to disclose in their petition their interests in various real estate partnerships and multiple foreclosure proceedings, which the Chapter 7 Trustee discovered through reviewing the Debtors’ tax return and public records.  The Debtors then sought to convert to Chapter 13 and the Chapter 7 Trustee objected. The Court held the Debtors  initial schedules were so misleading as to give rise to an inference  of bad faith, which in turn prevents conversion. Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S.

Summary: Debtor executed a promissory note and Deed of Trust in favor of First Citizens in 2004, but since the loans inception made payments to (or through) Cenlar.  After the Debtor filed Chapter 13 in 2007,    Cenlar filed a proof of claim, including a copy of the note, but without any indorsement.  In 2008, the Debtor fell behind on payments and a consent order resolving such delinquency was entered, stating, among other things, that Cellar was the holder or servicer of the note.  In March of 2011, Residential Credit Solutions ("RCS") filed a

Summary: The complaint and anser both failed, in contravention of Rules 7008(a) and 7012(b), to state whether the proceeding was core or  non-core, and if non-core, where the parties consented to the bankruptcy court entering  final orders or judgments.  The Court held that, in light of Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct.