Summary: The Female Debtor received a bonus for 2010 in March 2011 ad filed Chapter 7 in June 2011.  She claimed an exemption in an annual bonus under N.C.G.S.

Summary: The Goldens loaned their then friends, the Malones, $14,700.00.  The Goldens then filed bankruptcy, failing to disclose the existence of this loan as, either as an asset or otherwise.  While his own bankruptcy was still pending, Mr.  Golden commence collection attempts on this loan,  with the parties relationship souring dramatically, with allegations of "scandalous behavior" being traded between Mr.  Golden and Mr.  Malone, including alcohol and drug use, trips to "adult entertainment establishments", etc..  Eventually the Malones

Summary:

Following an order denying the Debtor’s motion to dismiss, the Debtor sought certification of his appeal directly to the Court of Appeals, bypassing the District Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(B).  Direct certification is allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A) if the court before which the matter is pending determines:

(i) the . . . order . . . involves a question of law as to which there is no controlling decision of

Summary: The Debtor sought to employ James McElroy & Diehl, P.A. ("JMD"), as counsel  under 11 U.S.C. §  327(a) for representation in various other matters, including litigation and other "future, discrete matters" in the bankruptcy cases.   Because JMD had received substantial compensation from two equity owners of the Debtor, who were also substantial creditors, the Court found that JMD could not be deemed to be disinterested as required under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) and could not be approved.  Nor could JMD be approved under 11 U.S.C.

Summary:

Answer a Complaint filed by Wells Fargo in North Carolina Superior Court, Stonebridge asserted several counterclaims.  When Stonebridge later filed Chapter 11,   the state court action was removed to bankruptcy court.  Following the heightened pleading standards of Iqbal/Twombley,  Wells Fargo sought dismissal of the counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state claims for relief that were facially plausible.  Stonebridge   argued that the more permissive North Carolina pleading standards sho

Summary: In a dispute regarding a failed real estate development, Stonebridge asserted a breach of contract claim.  In response, NVR argued that a liquidated damages provision limited its liability for damages.  The Bankruptcy Court found that Stonebridge could not complain that a negotiated liquidated damages provision was insufficient or invalid.  The Bankruptcy Court also rejected the assertion by Stonebridge that NVR was required to indemnify economic damages, finding that the contract between the parties required indemnification of "damage to property and

In determining if the 60-day wages of the debtor were exempt, the Court determined that the Debtor's fiance and her son were part of his "family". “North Carolina courts understand the word ‘family’ to imply that the debtor has other dependents who rely on the debtor for support.” The use of the word 'dependent' here implies an actual situation of dependency, rather than a potential legal dependency.