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.

Summary: KGC Homeowners, Inc. (“KGC”) brought suit against William Douglas Management, Inc. (“WDM”) alleging breach of contract, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

Summary: Following the entry of a discharge in 2011 of his Chapter 13 case, First Federal Bank (“FFB”) continued to report on Mr.  Myrick’s credit report with Equifax that he owed an outstanding balance of $41,603 that was past due by $2,000.  In November 2014, Mr.  Myrick submitted a dispute with Equifax regarding this balance, raising his bankruptcy discharge.  Equifax sent a Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”) to FFB, which responded that the balance information was correct.  Later in February 2015, Mr.

Summary: The Chapter 7 Trustee alleged that the defendants' misrepresentations to the debtor regarding expansion opportunities constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as these induced the debtors to transfer their valuable business assets to the defendant's competing businesses . The Trustee alleged that, in fact, the true purpose of the transfers was to force the debtors into bankruptcy. In ruling on the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court began with restating the elements of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act at N.C.G.S.

Summary: Bio-Med obtained a default judgment against Ms. Strongs for breach of contract and conversion, alleging that she had improperly retained insurance reimbursement checks totaling $88,767.75, using those funds to purchase two luxury vehicles, which were subsequently transferred to family members. Ms.

Summary: Mr. Hurlburt sought to cram down the claim of a seller-financed purchase money deed to the value of his principal residence. While this would have been impermissible under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), because the note was due, Mr. Hurlburt argued that 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2) allowed such treatment even though Witt v. United Companies Lending Corp., 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997) interpreted that section to allow only modification of the payment and not cram down. As this was a seller-financed purchase money deed, the anti-deficiency provisions of N.C.G.S.

Summary: Federal Insurance Company, together with other plaintiffs, sought to amend its complaint, which already asserted that the debt owed by Mr. Sorge was nondischargable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), to add a claim of embezzlement and to revive a previously dismissed claim of breach of fiduciary duty, both nondischargable under § 523(a)(4). As “[l]eave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires, but may be denied if undue prejudice would result or if the amendment is futile,” Kozohorsky v. Harmon, 332 F.3d 1141, 1144 (8th Cir.

Summary: Throughout extended litigation regarding the validity of a junior mortgage (there are more than 300 docket entries in this Chapter 13 case), a motion to dismiss filed by the trustee remained pending due to the inability to confirm a plan.