Summary:
By Ed Boltz, 6 March, 2021
Summary:
By Ed Boltz, 6 March, 2021
Summary:
By Ed Boltz, 19 February, 2021
Summary:
By Ed Boltz, 21 July, 2019
Summary:
By Ed Boltz, 30 May, 2019
After several years in development by the North Carolina Bar Association Bankruptcy Section,
By Ed Boltz, 12 February, 2019
Summary:
After selling his business to Evapco, Mr. Peterson continued to work for Evapco subject to a non-compete agreement. Despite this, Mr. Peterson formed other entities which Evapco asserted violated such agreement and defrauded Evapco. Evapco brought suit in Maryland, with the court there entering a default judgment as a sanction against Mr.
By Ed Boltz, 8 October, 2018
Summary:
The Randles fell behind on their car payments and Saga Auto Sales repossessed the Randles’ 2011 Cadillac Escalade. Upon payment of $2,100, Saga returned the vehicle on December 2, 2017. With their next payment due on December 9, 2017, the Randles filed Chapter 13 on December 8, 2017. Saga again repossessed the vehicle on December 10, 2018, also taking possession of Ms.
By Ed Boltz, 5 October, 2018
Summary:
On remand from the 4th Circuit, where Jason McDonald and MDC first raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the bankruptcy court held that the actual debtor in this case held an ownership interest in MDC, such was, even under the broad “related to” jurisdiction, insufficient to allow the bankruptcy court to determine what assets were owned by that corporate entity. Otherwise:
Under such an expansive interpretation of “related to” jurisdiction, if a debtor owned a single share of a corporation, all litigatio
By Ed Boltz, 5 October, 2018
Summary:
Even though the Debtors admitted that they did not meet th venue requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1408, the bankruptcy court held that Rule 1014 required dismissal or transfer of a case filed in an improper district only on the filing of “timely” objection by a party in interest. Here, First New York Federal Credit Union did not object to venue until after the §341 Meeting of Creditors, payments had been collected through wage garnishment, and a proposed plan was pending, and then only on the 2nd to last day to object to Confirmation.
<