Summary: Mr. And Mrs. Cox, through their then attorney, entered into a settlement agreement in a civil forfeiture action brought for the collection of taxes, wherein they agreed to pay the government more than $3 million and granted Deeds of Trust against thirty-five tracts of land located throughout Alabama and North Carolina. After entering into this settlement, the government then initiated criminal prosecution of both of the Coxes and they subsequently pleaded guilty, with Mr. Cox being sentence to 33 months imprisonment, Mrs.

Summary: Turnover of a vehicle held by a Raeford Collision and subject to a possessory mechanic’s lien was resolved subject to a Consent Order, which required the MacGregor to provide the title to the vehicle so that a lien could be recorded with the North Carolina DMV.

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: Plaintiffs had brought suit against Howard A. Jacobson (“Jacobson”), Envision Sales & Marketing Group LLC (“Envision”), CILPS Acquisition LLC (“CILPS”), and the debtor (collectively “business court defendants”) and it was designated a mandatory complex business case and assigned to the North Carolina Business Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A–45.4(b).

Summary: The McFaddens obtained a mortgage from Flagstar in July 2007 for $116,500.00, secured by their real property located in Virginia. The note provided that it could be freely transfered by Flagstar and that the agreements in the Deed of Trust would bind and benefit successors and assignees of the note. Before August 2009, the note was transferred to Fannie Mae and around the same time the McFaddens fell delinquent on their payments.

Summary: Debtor brought an Adversary Proceeding against Defendants alleging unpaid invoices a little more than two months after its Chapter 11 plan was confirmed. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(a) a matter “is within the jurisdiction of [a Bankruptcy] Court if it is ‘arising under,’ ‘arising in,’ or ‘related to’ the corresponding bankruptcy case.” Citing to In re Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d 619, 625 (4thCir. 1997) (quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3rdCir.

Summary: The Debtor contested large portions of the Domestic Support Obligation (DSO) claim filed by his ex-wife, who was also seeking dismissal of his Chapter 13 plan. The bankruptcy court held that the Indiana Superior Court where this claim originated was best suited for deciding the issues, See Caswell v. Lang, 757 F.25 608, 610 (4th Cir.

Summary: Not quite half-way through this exhaustive opinion, the bankruptcy court, in discussing Stern v.

Summary: The complaint and anser both failed, in contravention of Rules 7008(a) and 7012(b), to state whether the proceeding was core or  non-core, and if non-core, where the parties consented to the bankruptcy court entering  final orders or judgments.  The Court held that, in light of Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct.