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.
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.
Prior to filing bankruptcy, Mr. Faison had received an offer to purchase his real property from Marlowe & Moye for $1.1 million dollars, conditioned on improved road access being allowed by the Town of Knightdale. When that was not granted, the sale fell through and Mr. Faison eventually filed Ch.
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.
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
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 Confir
