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: Jessica Whitaker was injured in an automobile accident and incurred, with $1,515 in costs to other medical providers, $757 for treatment at Nash Hospitals. State Farm, the insurer for the driver of the other vehicle, received notice of Nash Hospital’s medical liens under N.C.G.S. §§ 44-49 and 50. After questioning the necessity of all of the medical treatment, State Farm settled with Ms. Whitaker, who was unrepresented, for a total of $1,943, providing her with a check payable to Ms. Whitaker, Nash Hospital and the other medical provider.

Summary: The Alvarezes purchased their home in 2007 and refinanced in 2009 with PNC Mortgage servicing the loan for Fannie Mae. At that time the mortgage documents provided that the Alvarezes would maintain homeowner's insurance and property taxes directly, without an escrow account. The Alvarezes began to have financial difficulties in 2012, but were denied mortgage assistance by PNC.

Summary: Despite being provided with evidence in the form of cancelled checks and insurance policies showing that they were not delinquent in their mortgage payments, Citimortgage commenced foreclosure against the Nances.  After refinancing their house, the Nances brought suit against Citimortgage alleging, among other causes of action,  unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and negligent and/or intentional damage to credit report.  Citimortgage moved to dismiss. As to the unfair and dec

Summary: Fritz closed his account with Duke Energy when he moved, but was one week late in paying the final bill, so it was referred to a debt collector. He did pay the balance to Duke Energy, who applied the amount to the balance on his new utility bill. The debt collector was not informed of the payment and two months later, reported Fritz as delinquent to the three major credit bureaus, resulting in a 77 point decline in his credit score. Fritz brought suit against Duke Energy (as well as the debt collector under other bases) under N.C.G.S.

Summary: The Debtor, after various alleged inconsistencies and shenanigans by Wells Fargo in application of her payments and insurance proceeds, as well as failures in the review of her loan modification application, filed bankruptcy and brought suit alleging, among other causes of action, breaches of contract and duties of good faith & fair dealing and fiduciary duty, fraud and constructive fraud, and violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Act. Wells Fargo sought dismissal for failing to state a claim. Following Wigod v.

Summary: The debtor brought adversary proceeding against Vanderbilt and its agent Mr. Gibson, alleging that they had violated N.C.G.S. §§ 75-51 through 54, by making harassing phone calls that caused an employment demotion and loss of pay, mental and emotional distress, panic attacks, and medical expenses and were, under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, unfair and deceptive trade practices, subjecting Vanderbilt to treble damages.

Summary: The McClendons sought to purchase a home built by Jim Walters Homes (JWH) and financed by Walter Mortgage Company (WMC). Both the construction and the financing went through several permutations, with the size of the house, the amount of the loan, and the loan interest rate, increasing several times.

Summary: Chapter 13 Debtor brought an Adversary Proceeding against Cashcall, seeking a declaratory judgment that the debt owed to Cashcall (resulting from a $1,500.00 payday loan) was in violation of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-164 to -191 (2012) and alleging that Cashcall engaged in acts that qualify as Prohibited Acts by Debt Collectors under N.C. Gen. Stat.