Summary:

Mrs. Dev had filed three bankruptcy cases, with the second dismissed on September 12, 2017, and the third filed on February 13, 2018, for the purpose, among others, of stopping the foreclosure of her home by Coastal Federal Credit Union. CFCU brought a Motion for Relief arguing that it lacked adequate protection, that the plan was filed in bad faith, was abusive, and part of a scheme to delay, hinder and defraud CFCU. It sought in rem relief for two years. Ms.

Summary:

Mr. Tyler obtained a mortgage against his home and eventually fell delinquent and faced foreclosure proceedings. Mr. Tyler then filed a pro se Chapter 7 bankruptcy and commenced an adversary proceeding challenging the foreclosure on host of the usual grounds.

Summary:

After filing Ch.  11,  during which case Bank of America filed a Proof of Claim asserting that it was secured by a Deed of Trust owned by Mr.  McGowan and occupied by his then minor daughter, McGowan converted to Ch. 7, received a discharge and the real property was abandoned.

Summary:

Ms.  Broughton,  a persistent and likely pernicious debtor and appellant,  filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proposing to sell for the benefit of her secured creditors the real property she claimed to own in “fee simple absolute; and as trustee for trust for the benefit of her heirs.”  When this plan was rejected, her case was converted to Chapter 7.  The Trustee subsequently obtained an order to sell the property free and clear of liens, but by then Ms.  Broughton opposed such sale,

Summary:

Ms.  Broughton,  a persistent and likely pernicious debtor and appellant,  filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proposing to sell for the benefit of her secured creditors the real property she claimed to own in “fee simple absolute; and as trustee for trust for the benefit of her heirs.”  When this plan was rejected, her case was converted to Chapter 7.  The Trustee subsequently obtained an order to sell the property free and clear of liens, but by then Ms.  Broughton opposed such sale,

Summary:

Summary: After direct appeal to the 4th Circuit was declined, the district court affirmed the opinion of the bankruptcy court in Hurlburt that the anti-deficiency statute of N.C.G.S. § 45-21.28 does not allow debtors to circumvent the anti-modification provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) and (c)(2), with Witt v. United Companies Lending Corp. (In Re Witt), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir.

Summary: Between March 7, 2017, and November 28, 2017, Mr. Stockwell filed first a Chapter 13 and then three Chapter 7 cases, with the fourth case being filed while the third was still pending. (The dismissal of the third case had been set aside as it had been automatically dismissed due to the failure to file documents under 11 U.S.C. § 521(I) while the Bankruptcy Administrator’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.) Mr. Stockwell’s cases were filed with the apparent intent of holding off a foreclosure by Ocwen, as it was the only creditor listed in any of his cases.