Summary:
The Chapter 7 Trustee alleged that the defendants' misrepresentations to the debtor regarding expansion opportunities constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as these induced the debtors to transfer their valuable business assets to the defendant's competing businesses . The Trustee alleged that, in fact, the true purpose of the transfers was to force the debtors into bankruptcy.
In ruling on the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court began with restating the elements of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act at N.C.G.S.
Summary:
Creditor, Two Olives, Inc., sought denial of the debtors’ discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) , asserting that“the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor . . . has permitted to be transferred . . .
Summary:
On September 26, 2008, Luther Bateman transferred, subject to retention of a life estate, property located at 106 Sanderline Road, Shawboro, North Carolina to his children, Carol Bateman Cooper, Timothy Ross Bateman, Louis Eugene Bateman, and Robert Charles Bateman (“the Defendants”). On August 4, 2010, Mr. Bateman filed Chapter 7 and valued his life estate in the Property to be approximately $186,000.00, subject to a mortgage in the amount of $15,395.99.
Summary:
On remand from the district court, the issue was whether the complaint filed by Livingstone College, Inc. (“Livingstone”) properly states a claim for relief under 11 U.S.C.
Summary:
The Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiff had failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the TILA because her proposed reading of the notice disclosing the number and due dates of payments due under that transaction is not objectively reasonable. Further, because the disclosure to the Plaintiff of her right to cancel the 2007 credit transaction contained all of the information required by the TILA, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1635(a)-(b), and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R.
Summary:
In a prior related case, the Plaintiffs brought class action suit against Credit Collections Defense Network (“CCDN”) and several individuals, as attorneys associated with CCDN, alleging a scam that involved promises to assist debtors in legally avoiding credit card debts. See Lucas v. R.K. Lock & Assoc., 710 S.E. 2d 707 (N.C. Ct. App. March 2011).
Summary:
Dark brought an adversary proceeding seeking to have the debt of Thomas declared nondischargable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Thomas moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
Summary:
After Wells Fargo commenced foreclosure, the Debtor filed an action against Wells Fargo first in North Carolina Superior Court, which was then removed to the Middle District Court. (This series of events actually occurred twice.) When the Debtor eventually filed bankruptcy in the Eastern District, venue in her case against Wells Fargo was transferred.
Following a Motion to dismiss the Debtor’s complaint, the Debtor sought to voluntarily dismiss her Chapter 13 case, requesting that the Complaint against Wells Fargo then be remanded to either the Eastern D
Summary:
The Male Debtor executed a promissory note in favor of Option One Mortgage, the predecessor to Wells Fargo, and at the same time both Debtors executed a Deed of Trust. Subsequently, the Male Debtor defaulted on the note and the property was sold at foreclosure. A Substitute Trustee’s Deed was then recorded, conveying the property to Wells Fargo.
Later, the Clerk of Court was informed that the Notice of Sale had not been included in the foreclosure file and Clerk set aside the foreclosure sale. Wells Fargo then transferred the property to Male Debto
Answer a Complaint filed by Wells Fargo in North Carolina Superior Court, Stonebridge asserted several counterclaims. When Stonebridge later filed Chapter 11, the state court action was removed to bankruptcy court. Following the heightened pleading standards of Iqbal/Twombley, Wells Fargo sought dismissal of the counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state claims for relief that were facially plausible. Stonebridge argued that the more permissive North Carolina pleading standards sho
