Calmore & Hygiena George, residents of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, purchased a townhome in Charlotte for their four daughters, all of whom were attending college there. There were no mortgages or liens against the property. Ms. George would typically visit for a month during the summer and both during Christmas.
Summary:
Homeowner’s association filed a Proof of Claim in the Debtor’s Chapter 13 case asserting that it was secured by a lien against the Debtor’s residence. The Debtor objected to the secured status as the HOA had not filed a Claim of Lien with the County Clerk of Court pursuant to the Planned Community Act (“PCA”) at N.C.G.S. § 47F-3-116(a). The HOA argued that its recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions was sufficient under common law to hold a secured claim without the filing of a Claim of Lien.
Summary:
Fontell brought suit against her Homeowner’s Association (“HOA”)alleging violation of the FDCPA, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”). When the district court did not grant her summary judgment on these claims, she appealled.
The Court of Appeals held that her assertion that the HOA violated the MCDCA by untimely bringing suit against her was not supported by evidence sufficient as a matter of law to grant summary judgment under Rule 56(a).
Summary:
The Chapter 13 Debtors owned 26 lots in the Waterside Villages, secured by a Deed of Trust to the Bank of Currituck, which had foreclosed on the properties on July 29, 2009. Waterside Villages filed a Proof of Claim asserting homeowners dues of $77,844.00.
The Debtors objected to the Proof of Claim on basis that they had been denied access to the properties after Wachovia Bank foreclosed on the subdivision developer, preventing the Debtors from marketing the properties.
Summary:
The Debtor filed Chapter 13 and his plan was confirmed, with property of the estate re-vesting with the Debtor at that point. Subsequently, the Debtor fell into default with his homeowner’s dues. The Homeowner’s Association (“HOA”) file a Motion for Relief from the Stay seeking both relief from the stay and attorney’s fees. The Debtor admitted the default, but contested the attorneys’ fees as being unnecessary.
Relying on In re Jones, 339 B.R. 360, 365 (Bankr. E.D.N.C.
Summary:
In the Debtor’s first Chapter 13 case, the Debtor and his homeowner’s association entered into a consent order denying the homeowner’s motion for relief, subject to the Debtor complying with specific conditions. Failure to comply would result in the lifting of the automatic stay. The Debtor’s bankruptcy was shortly thereafter dismissed and the Debtor refiled. The homeowner’s association contended that the consent order in the previous case was res judicata and it was thereby entitled to relief from the automatic stay in the second case.
