Summary:

Ms. Hinyub obtained a default judgment against AA Recovery for $5,000 in damages and $4,100 in attorney's fees and cost. When AA Recovery failed to pay, Ms. Hinyub requested to conduct an examination of the primary officer of AA Recovery. The court, however, held that as Ms. Hinyub had not had a writ of execution issued and N.C.G.S. § 1-352 only allows an examination when such writ "is returned wholly or partially unsatisfied."

Summary:

Summary:

Summary:

Summary:

Ms.  Broughton,  a persistent and likely pernicious debtor and appellant,  filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proposing to sell for the benefit of her secured creditors the real property she claimed to own in “fee simple absolute; and as trustee for trust for the benefit of her heirs.”  When this plan was rejected, her case was converted to Chapter 7.  The Trustee subsequently obtained an order to sell the property free and clear of liens, but by then Ms.  Broughton opposed such sale,

  Summary: Default Judgment was entered in favor of Ms. Deal for violations of the FDCPA by Trinity Hope Associates, which failed to respond to the Complaint. Commentary: The only aspect that is interesting is that this is a 10-page opinion finding default, where the defendant did not answer. For a copy of the opinion, please see: Deal v.

Summary: Ms. Mungo-Craig brought suit against Navient, first in state court and then after removal in federal district court, alleging violations of the FDCPA and North Carolina Debt Collection Act. The district court denied her motion to remand, finding that it did have federal question jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the FDCPA and supplemental jurisdiction for the other state law claims, as they arose from the same common nucleus of facts. It then granted the Motion to Dismiss brought by Navient finding that Ms.

Summary: Plaintiffs brought a class action against various payday lenders for violations of North Carolina law forbidding high interest rate loans either through by telephone or internet.

Summary: Despite being provided with evidence in the form of cancelled checks and insurance policies showing that they were not delinquent in their mortgage payments, Citimortgage commenced foreclosure against the Nances.  After refinancing their house, the Nances brought suit against Citimortgage alleging, among other causes of action,  unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and negligent and/or intentional damage to credit report.  Citimortgage moved to dismiss. As to the unfair and dec