statute of limitations
By Ed Boltz, 11 December, 2021
By Ed Boltz, 3 September, 2020
By Ed Boltz, 26 December, 2018
By Ed Boltz, 9 January, 2018
Summary: Mr. Bass filed his 2012 federal tax return electronically, but unintentionally failed to file his state return. In July 2016, the North Carolina Department of Revenue (“NCDOR”) sent Mr. Bass a Notice of Intent to Assess for Failure to File North Carolina Return (“the Notice”) and then Mr. Bass filed his 2012 return on August 4, 2016, contending a refund was due. The NCDOR denied the refund, as the return was beyond the 3-year statute of limitations. Mr.
By Ed Boltz, 27 August, 2017
Summary: Mr. Rusnack and his then-wife, opened a home equity line of credit (HELOC) with Cardinal Bank in August 2003. Between 2003 and 2006, the Rusnacks periodically drew on the HELOC using checks issued by Cardinal Bank. On June 22, 2006, shortly after the Rusnacks separated, Mr. Rusnack directed Cardinal Bank in writing to freeze further advances from the HELOC and Cardinal Bank acknowledge such freeze. Despite this, Cardinal Bank honored two checks each in the amount of $10,000 from Ms. Rusnack on July 26, 2006, and September 12, 2006.
By Ed Boltz, 22 August, 2017
Summary: In an unfulfilled business agreement, over a period of fourteen (14) years, Medflow, Inc. never made any royalty payments, never provided a written sales reports ,and never obtained consent for restricted sales. When Christenbury Eye Center, P.A. brought suit for such, the trial court dismissed the case as the various claims were stale under the applicable Statutes of Limitations.
By Ed Boltz, 10 August, 2017
Summary: Leaving aside the multiple foreclosure proceedings and subsequent appeals, Mr. Garvey eventually filed a short-lived, pro se Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Attorneys for Seterus filed a Notice of Appearance and Objection to Confirmation. Mr. Garvey then sent a demand to the attorneys, as debt collectors, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
By Ed Boltz, 11 December, 2016
Summary: While factually complicated, this case presents two issues of first impression under North Carolina law, first regarding the interpretation of the term “transfer” the North Carolina Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, N.C.G.S.
By Ed Boltz, 3 February, 2015
Summary: The Colemans own lots 42, 43, 44, and 45 of a subdivision, with their home located on lots 42 and 43 and lots 44 and 45 being undeveloped. In 2007, Mr. Coleman borrowed $137,567.00 from (now) Wells Fargo, secured by a Deed of Trust signed by the couple.