By Ed Boltz, 9 October, 2018
In apparent connection with a foreclosure, Richardson, acting pro se, brought and FDCPA suit for failure to adequately verify debts under 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g) against Shapiro & Brown, Nationstar Mortgage and Rushmore Loan Management. In a very terse one-page memorandum opinion, the district court dismissed the case due to res judicata and the statute of limitations. It can be surmised only from the brief filed by Nationstar at the district court with its Motion to Dismiss, that Richardson had previously raised FDCPA claims in an at
By Ed Boltz, 23 August, 2017
By Ed Boltz, 17 December, 2016
Summary: Mr. Daniel, together with the Chapter 13 Trustee subsequently added as a necessary Plaintiff, sought to avoid a pre-petition foreclosure by his homeowner’s association of his residence (in which the upset period had elapsed prior to filing of the bankruptcy) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1), as it had occurred within two years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy, had made the Debtor insolvent and provided less than “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for the transfer.
By Ed Boltz, 2 August, 2016
Summary: The Phillips filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and successfully avoided the judgment lien held by McInnis. The Order allowing the avoidance provided that: 3. The Judgment lien of the McInnises is declared to be void and shall be removed of record upon the completion of the Chapter 13 Plan of the Debtors and entry of the discharge in this case pursuant to Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code. 4.
By Ed Boltz, 4 February, 2015
Summary: The Court of Appeals held that the finding by the Mecklenburg Clerk of Court at the foreclosure hearing that Bank of America was the holder of the mortgage note was res judicata and precluded the Mazzones from making an impermissible collateral attack on this question in a subsequent action to quiet title. Commentary: The Court of Appeals here relied completely on Phil Mechanic Const. Co., Inc. v. Haywood, 72 N.C. App. 318, 322, 325 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1985) which held that “when a mortgagee or trustee elects to proceed under G.S.
By Ed Boltz, 28 January, 2015
Summary: Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed cramming down the claim of Greater Piedmont Credit Union against mobile home and land, prior to the filing of the Proof of Claim by GPCU showing that title to the mobile home had been cancelled, affixing it to the real property.
By Ed Boltz, 5 August, 2014
Summary: Following failed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Five Wins obtained a declaratory judgment against Iris finding that Iris owed $894,711.24 to redeem real property from foreclosure. After Five Wins bid $875,000.00 for the properties, WA Ventures made a successful upset bid at the subsequent foreclosure in the amount of $918,750.00 and then assigned the bid to Five Wins.
By Ed Boltz, 27 March, 2014
Summary: Petri originally had a mortgage with Luxury Mortgage Corp., but subsequently Bank of America (“BOA”) commenced foreclosure proceedings. Appealing the order allowing foreclosure, Petri argued that BOA was not the true holder of the note authorized to foreclose.
By Ed Boltz, 25 March, 2013
Summary: Following a Motion for Relief from Stay filed by ASC, the Debtor argued that ASC was not a a “party in interest” and lacked standing as there was neither an endorsement on the note nor an allonge affixed and presented in support of the Motion. \ Avoiding this issue, the Bankruptcy Court held “that a confirmed Chapter 13 plan, which represents a new contractual agreement between debtors and their creditors, is res judicata on the issue of a creditor’s rights as a party in interest with standing to seek relief from the stay.” In re Jeter, No.