Summary: On March 23, 2017, the bankruptcy lifted the automatic stay for Peak Leasing with regard to one of four trailers Mr. Price had obtain from Peak and took under advisement whether the remaining claims were “true leases” or disguised PMSIs.

Summary: Mr. And Mrs. Cox, through their then attorney, entered into a settlement agreement in a civil forfeiture action brought for the collection of taxes, wherein they agreed to pay the government more than $3 million and granted Deeds of Trust against thirty-five tracts of land located throughout Alabama and North Carolina. After entering into this settlement, the government then initiated criminal prosecution of both of the Coxes and they subsequently pleaded guilty, with Mr. Cox being sentence to 33 months imprisonment, Mrs.

Summary: Ms. Collins, representing herself pro se, in an action alleging multiple claims arising from a mortgage lending scheme by the defendants failed to comply with multiple orders regarding discovery. Upon the motions of the defendants, the district court (lamenting that no attorneys from the Pro Bono Panel had stepped up to assist Ms. Collins) applied the four-part test from Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 348 (4th Cir.

Summary: The bankruptcy court denied Mr.

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.