Summary: The Colemans own lots 42, 43, 44, and 45 of a subdivision, with their home located on lots 42 and 43 and lots 44 and 45 being undeveloped. In 2007, Mr. Coleman borrowed $137,567.00 from (now) Wells Fargo, secured by a Deed of Trust signed by the couple.

Summary: Gathings granted a Deed of Trust to Countrywide, later succeeded by Bank of America. The Deed of Trust included the correct Property Identification Number and physical address, but had an incorrect legal description. The property was subsequently sold at a foreclosure sale for homeowners dues to CPI, which did not discover the Deed of Trust in favor of Bank of America.

Summary: Plaintiffs brought suit against, among other, lenders that had financed mortgage loans for the development of investment properties, alleging that the appraisals conducted, which unanimously and uniformly valued real property lots, regardless of specific qualities or locations, for $500,000, the exact minimum to support the mortgage lender’s underwriting requirements, constituted both negligent underwriting and also an unfair trade practice. Following shortly after the Dallaire opinion from the North Carolina Supreme Court (see:

Summary: Siblings, Townsend and Simmons owned real property as tenants in common. Townsend brought suit seeking a partition sale of the property, naming Simmons the lienholder, Citimortgage and the City of Greensboro, as defendants. After the trial court found that due to the size and nature of the property actual partition of the property could not be made without injury to the parties and ordered a partition sale.

Summary: A quit claim deed, recorded with the Buncombe Register of Deeds on May 14, 2009, was blank as to the legal description and only included the handwritten entry “Parcel #960704498200000.”. On April 29, 2010, a “Affidavit of Correction” was recorded including the legal metes and bounds description. The Court of Appeals held that the quit claim deed was void as it inadequately described the property, holding that a tax PIN alone was insufficient. The Court distinguished Fisher v. Town of Nags Head, ___ N.C. App.

Summary: Following failed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Five Wins obtained a declaratory judgment against Iris finding that Iris owed $894,711.24 to redeem real property from foreclosure. After Five Wins bid $875,000.00 for the properties, WA Ventures made a successful upset bid at the subsequent foreclosure in the amount of $918,750.00 and then assigned the bid to Five Wins.

Summary: FIA brough suit against Caviness for a credit card debt in the amount of $10,150.19. Lacking the actual credit card agreement, it present as evidence monthly billing statements from November 2008 through March 2011, copies of checks from Caviness (and his business), as well as from a third party, and an affidavit from its authorized representative.

Summary: Hensel had student loans of more that $90,000. In November 2012, he received two bills for late fees in the total amount of $68.28. In response, on December 9, 2012, Hensel sent XBS a check for $68.28 attached to a letter that asserted the late fees violated the FDCPA, that assessment of the late fees had harmed his ability to purchase a home, and proposing to release his claims if XBS cancelled his remaining student loans, with cashing of the $68.28 to constitute acceptance.

Summary: In 2006, Devane executed a promissory note and Deed of Trust in favor of Aurora. Aurora subsequently, erroneously asserted that Devane violated the repayment terms of the note on six occassions. In September 2010, an agent of Aurora informed Devane that it had misapplied payments made by Devane to another account. At that time, Devane was place on a new payment plan, but her original payments were still not applied.

Summary: Wells Fargo sought a reformation of a Deed of Trust, which it discover, after the borrowers defaulted and Wells Fargo foreclosed (putatively purchasing the property itself), did not describe the actual real property upon which the house was built. The trial court held that as Wells Fargo, having purchased the property at foreclosure, was no longer a lender and lacked standing as a purchaser to seek reformation. The Court of Appeals disagreed, following Citifinancial Mortg. Co. v. Gray, 187 N.C. App.