Skip to main content
Home

Main navigation

  • NC Bankruptcy Cases
    • Eastern District
    • Middle District
    • Western District
  • NC Courts
    • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
    • NC Court of Appeals
    • NC Business Court
    • NC Supreme Court Cases
  • Federal Cases
  • Law Reviews & Studies
    • Book Reviews
  • NC Legislative History
  • Student Loan Debt
User account menu
  • Log in

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
By Ed Boltz, 16 February, 2021

N.C. Ct. of App: Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Hall- Indorsement of Mortgage Notes and Ratification of Transfers by Loan Modification

Summary:

By Ed Boltz, 13 May, 2016

N.C. Ct. of Appeals: U.S. Bank v. Pinkney- Chain of Indorsements of Note

Summary: The Pinkneys executed a mortgage note (“the Note”) in favor of Ford Consumer Finance, secured by a Deed of Trust. The Note was later indorsed to Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization (“CBASS”), which, in turn, assigned the Note to U.S. Bank, as Indenture Trustee, and lastly to U.S. Bank, without recourse. When U.S. Bank later sought to foreclose and a judgment for money owed, the Pinkney moved to dismiss that action on the basis that U.S.
By Ed Boltz, 4 February, 2015

N.C. Court of Appeals: In re Clouse- Requirement for De Novo Foreclosure Hearing

Summary: On October 21, 1998, the Clouses granted a Deed of Trust against their home originally to Homecomings Financial, later assigned to Deutsche Bank and serviced by GMAC. On June 22, 2012, Turnip Investments, following its suit against the Clouses, purchased the property at a judgment execution sale for $1,000.
By Ed Boltz, 20 March, 2013

N.C. Ct. of Appeals: In re Perry- Rights of Holder and Owner of Mortgage Note Indistinguishable

Summary: Perry executed a note and Deed of Trust in favor of American Home Mortgage (AHM), with two individuals named as Trustees and MERS named as the beneficiary and “solely as nominee” for AHM. Citimortgage acquired the mortgage through an endorsement by AHM.
By Ed Boltz, 8 March, 2013

N.C. Supreme Ct.: In re Bass- Stamped Indorsement is Sufficient for Transfer

Summary: The first indorsement in a chain of transfers of a mortgage note was simply a stamp, without an accompanying signature or initials. After falling behind on mortgage payments, Bass, relying on Econo-Travel Motor Hotel Corp. v. Taylor, 301 N.C. 200 (1980), challenged the standing of U.S. Bank as the holder of the note, arguing that it had not been properly indorsed. The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected this argument relying on the broad definition of “signature” in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), at N.C.G.S.
By Ed Boltz, 7 February, 2013

Bankr. S.D.N.Y.: In re Idicula- Standing to Seek Relief from the Automatic Stay

Summary: The Debtors filed Chapter 7 and indicated on their Statement of Intentions they intended to retain the real property, with an estimated value of $430,000. U.S. Bank sought relief from the automatic stay, asserting that the Debtors owed $639,365.25 in total, with a delinquency of $145,703.92. Sua sponte, the bankruptcy court held that U.S. Bank (and/or its servicer, Select Portfolio Services) had failed to establish that it owns or has the right to enforce the promissory note secured by the Property.
By Ed Boltz, 17 April, 2012

N.C. Court of Appeals: TD Bank v. Mirabella- Judicial Notice Inappropriate to Show Merger as Basis for Establishing Holder of a Note

Summary: TD Bank filed suit against Mirabella (rather than foreclosing) for amounts owed on a promissory note, originally entered into by Mirabella and Carolina First Bank (CFB).  TD Bank contended that, following its merger with CFB, it stood in the place of CFB.  No evidence, however, was presented at trial of the merger, instead TD Bank argued that the court should take judicial notice of the merger. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding that judicial notice is appropriate for "facts generally known with the territorial jurisdiction."  While
By Ed Boltz, 20 December, 2011

N.C. Court of Appeals: In re Yopp- Holder of the Note through Corporate Merger; Evidence Allowable in a Foreclosure

Summary: Capital One commenced a foreclosure against the Debtors on a Deed of Trust, originally granted to Chevy Chase Bank, which later merged with Capital One.  The foreclosure was allowed in part based on, among other documents, an Affidavit from James Cox, Vice President of Capital One.  This Affidavit stated that "to the best of [his] knowledge" Capital One was the servicer and holder of the mortgage note. The Debtors objected to this affidavit, arguing that it denoted only Mr.  Cox’s personal opinion and was not made upon personal knowledge as required b
holder of the note

About Us

Mountain View The purpose of the NC Bankruptcy Expert blog is to provide legal professionals with a consolidated resource for updates and case summaries about issues and decisions affecting bankruptcy, foreclosures, mortgages, and debt collection.

 
Lawyer Edward Boltz | Top Attorney Chapter 7

NC Bankruptcy Expert FREE Consultation

We Offer A Free Bankruptcy Consultation which has helped over 70,000 North Carolina families. We serve the entire state of North Carolina.

Proud Member of:












Categories

  • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Book Reviews
  • District Courts
  • Eastern District
  • Ed Boltz: Bankruptcy Attorney
  • Federal Cases
  • Forms
  • Home
  • Law Reviews & Studies
  • Middle District
  • Mortgage Modification Mediation Documents
  • NC Business Court
  • NC Court of Appeals
  • NC Courts
  • NC Supreme Court Cases
  • News
  • North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases
  • North Carolina District Court Cases
  • North Carolina Exemptions Legislative History
  • Student Loan Debt
  • Student Loan Options and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
  • Western District
RSS feed
v. 1.2.2, © 2013-2025 ncbankruptcyexpert.com, all rights reserved. Follow @edboltz