Summary: The Court examined the three options for determining household size for Means Test calculations.  Rejecting both the Census Bureau "heads on beds" approach and the IRS dependency test, the Court instead found that an analysis of  "economic unit" was appropriate. "Head on Beds" could be inaccurate "[i]f the debtor’s household includes an individual who  purchases these items from his own separate income, and contributes nothing to the debtor’s household for these items, then the deduction will include an unwarranted extra amount that wouldotherwise be

Summary: The Debtors had initially disclosed in their petition that they anticipated receiving tax refunds for 2008 totaling $3,000.00.  The actually received $11,194.00, but failed to notify either the Chapter 13 Trustee or their attorney. After failing to obtain confirmation of their original Chapter plan, which sought to strip-off a junior mortgage held by State Employee's Credit Union,  a the Debtors proposed a plan releasing their residence to SECU.  Under the new plan, no funds would be paid to SECU, which accordingly sought and obtained an order allowin

Summary: Deluxe Cleaners originally filed Chapter 11 in the Eastern District of North Carolina, but venue was shortly thereafter transferred to the Middle District of North Carolina.  A related bankruptcy,  filed by the Parks (who owned Deluxe Cleaners) was filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina.  Thus began a cross-district tangle. Prior to the filing of either bankruptcy, Deluxe Cleaners and the Parks obtained a judgment against Forrest Investment Group.  As part of the Deluxe Cleaners bankruptcy, assets were sold to Forrest Investment and this

The Debtor acquired a piece of real property in 2001 solely in his name.  In 2007, three months after the Plaintiff/Creditor file a lawsuit against the Debtor, the Debtor transferred the property to himself and his wife as Tenants by the Entireties.  Four months later, the Debtor filed Chapter 7. The Plaintiff brought an action against the Debtor under 11 U.S.C.

Creditor objected to cram-down of mobile home and land under §1322(b)(2). The Debtors contended that §1322(b)(2) did not apply since the mobile home still had its wheels, axles, and hitch attached and never had its DMV Certificate of Title cancelled. The Court turned to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105- 273 (13) (d) to determine if the mobile home was real or personal property, finding the pertinent requirements to be all of the following: 1. It is a residential structure. 2. It has the moving hitch, wheels, and axles removed. 3.

A finding that a debt is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C.

The Debtor had obtained a series of loans from Creditor, pledging three automobiles as collateral for those loans.

Husband and Wife Debtors were guarantors of a business loan and pledged Deeds of Trust as collateral securing the loans. The Debtors filed Chapter 7 and asserted that by requiring the Wife ot join in the guaranty, the Creditor had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") and the Deed of Trust should be void. Creditor brought a Motion to dismiss arguing that: 1. The Debtors did not have standing under ECOA since as guarantors, they ere not "applicants" under the statute.