Western District

Summary:

Summary:

The bankruptcy court allowed Y2 Yoga to file a claim for post-petition attorneys fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 6-21.6(f). When that amount exceed the judgment amount upon which the claim was based, VR King objected that such was prohibted as the award of reasonable attorney’s fees may not exceed the amount in controversy.

Summary:

Summary:

Two months prior to the filing of bankruptcy by Ms. Corbell-Dockins and her husband, Kirk Morishita died leaving Corbell-Dockins the beneficiary of his 401k, which was rolled over into a 401k account in her name.

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:

Gabiddon Builder proposed Subchapter V Plan in which it would sell the lot it owns and to use the net proceeds to pay creditors $10,000 each with the remainder of their claims to be paid over the balance of the Plan. Gabiddon Builders would then use the balance of the net proceeds to purchase a second lot and to build a 4,300 square foot house on that lot, from which it could then sell and use those proceeds to continue to fund the Plan.

Summary:

Bestwall sought to have a Personal Injury Questionnaire ("PIQ") sent to all asbestos claimants pursuant to Rule 2004 to which the Claimants Committee objected. The bankruptcy court found that the PIQ created no undue hardship and was consistent with other similar orders and overruled the objection. The Claimants Committee appealed.

Summary:

Ms. Carter brought suit against her bank, Capital One, for complying with an IRS levy by taking $1,279.41 from her account, arguing that Capital One had violated the FDCPA. Finding that "an obligation to pay that 'arises solely by operation of law' is not a debt covered by the FDCPA" the district court dismissed the case.

Commentary:

Summary:

Summary: