Summary:

Summary:

Summary: Following the disclosure in more than 4,200 Proofs of Claim by Wake Med of personal identifying information, several Debtors sought sanctions for violations of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037, HIPAA, and 11 U.S.C. §107. The bankruptcy court held that it was not a “HIPAA compliance tribunal” and might not have jurisdiction to decide such claims. Further, “[t]he case law overwhelmingly holds that there is no private right of action under HIPAA or §107 ”, leaving Rule 9037 as the primary remedy.

Debt Buyer keeps naggin' at you night and day Enough to drive you nuts Pick up the phone, leave me alone It's time you made a stand. Paraphrase of AC/DC- Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap Abstract: More than 77 million Americans have a debt in collections. Many of these debts will be sold to debt buyers for pennies, or fractions of pennies, on the dollar. This Article details the perilous path that debts travel as they move through the collection ecosystem.

Summary: The Trustee alleged fraudulent conveyances by the Debtor to his non-filing spouse and sought to recover the transfers. In her answer, Ms. Houseman asserted, and the Trustee disputed, her 7th Amendment right to a jury trial. Her answer did not explicitly raise any counterclaims, but did assert a right of “setoff” or “credit” for funds she contributed, as well as asserting both that the transfers were made in good faith and for value under N.C.G.S.

Summary: Debtor objected to a Proof of Claim in a 100% dividend Chapter 13 plan filed by Oak Harbor Capital VII (“Oak Harbor”) for an obligation purchased from Barclays Bank, asserting that the claim fails to comply with the requirements of certain subsections of the North Carolina Collection Agency Act (“NCAA”) N.C.G.S. § 58-70-1 et seq. , and therefore should be disallowed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1). Finding that while some applicable non-bankruptcy law, such as the Statute of Limitations, would render a claim unenforceable, the NCCCA at N.C.G.S.

Summary: The Debtor had since 1998 complied with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 105-306 to list for taxes the personal property owned in Wake County. The Debtor was required to file such a disclosure between January 1st and 31st of 2009, but failed to do so, instead filing bankruptcy on February 18, 2009. On September 30, 2009, Wake County subsequently sent the Debtor a notice that it had assessed taxes at a “discovered value” of 125% of the value from the previous year and that the Debtor had, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 105-312(d), thirty (30) days to contest this value.

Summary: The creditor had obtained a judgment against the debtor, with such judgment still being on appeal. The creditor, nonetheless, filed a Proof of Claim in the debtor’s Chapter 11 case, to which the debtor objection. Read together, 11 U.S.C. § 502(a) and 1126(a) prohibit a claimant from voting on a Chapter 11 plan if the debtor has objected to the claim. Bankruptcy Rule 3018(a), however, allows the bankruptcy court, at its sound discretion, to temporarily allow the claim for purposes of accepting or rejecting the proposed plan.

Summary: In this case, the bankruptcy court’s retelling of the facts (or allegations of facts) surrounding a failed friendship, a failed car wash and the ownership of a 1968 Ford Mustang could serve as a prospectus for a reality television show. The issue ultimately revolved around the validity of a replacement title obtained by Morgan from the DMV. The court held that the burden fell on Morgan to establish that the subsequent Title Application was valid.

Summary: Cashcall sought to withdraw its previously filed proof of claim and the Debtor objected, as such withdrawal would deprive the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to hear the objection to claim and other matters brought in an Adversary Proceeding. Applying Bankruptcy Rule 3006, the bankruptcy court held that as the Debtor had filed an Adversary Proceeding, withdrawal of the Proof of Claim would prejudice the Debtor by eliminating any jurisdiction the bankruptcy court had, subjecting the Debtor’s counterclaims to litigation in state court and arbitration.