The NCMB offers a database of opinions for the years 2000 onward, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment seeking to determine their respective ownership interests in two companies, ownership over patents, certain contractual rights, and the viability of the chapter 7 trustee's avoidance power under 11 U.S.C. 548. Summary judgment granted in part when there was no genuine dispute as to a party's ownership interest; conflicting evidence was denied under North Carolina's parol evidence rule.  All remaining motions raised factual disputes not appropriate for summary judgment. 

Summary Judgment, Published No

Debtor's motion for sanctions for violation of the automatic stay granted. 

Automatic Stay, Published No

Plaintiff alleged violation of discharge injunction and state law violations. Defendant filed motion to dismiss. Court granted motion to dismiss as to state law claims on grounds of preemption and lack of jurisdiction. 

Jurisdiction, Published No

Debtors converted their Chapter 13 case to a Chapter 7.  Certain of  the funds held by the Chapter 13 Trustee were pursuant to an agreement not to pursue a preference claim against the male Debtor's parents under sections 547 and 550 of  the Bankruptcy Code.  The source of these funds collected were postpetition wages.  The Debtors agreed to have $3,600 remitted directly to the Chapter 7 Trustee in contemplation of the preference agreement.  The Court declined to find that the funds collected but not disbursed were prepetition property .  Under the recent Supreme Court decision, Harris v. Viegelahn, _U.S._, 135 S.Ct. 1829 (2015) postpeitition wages were to be remitted to the Debtors, but in this instance funds were remitted directly to the Chapter 7 Trustee in light of the Debtors' agreement.

Conversion, Published No

Debtor objected to claim filed by SunTrust as untimely.  The Debtor had timely filed a proof of claim on behalf of the creditor, and SunTrust later filed a proof of claim after the plan had been confirmed.  The Court found that the Debtor did not rebut the prima facie validity of the claim, and the creditor was allowed to amend the Debtor's timely filed proof of claim.

Claims, Published No

The objection of Earl Pickett to the administrative claim of Bryant-Durham Services, Inc. for services performed on the Debtor's property was overruled.

Administrative Expenses, Published No

The Court confirmed the Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan over the objection of her ex-spouse.  The fact that the Plan would result in the elimination of a $57,620 divorce-related debt did not by itself show lack of good faith.

Chapter 13 Plans, Published Yes

The Debtors originally filed a Chapter 13 case and their plan was confirmed.  The Debtors then converted their case to a Chapter 7.  Following the filing of the Bankruptcy Administrator's motion to deny the male Debtor a discharge pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 727(a)(8), the Debtors filed a motion to reconvert their case back to Chapter 13.  It is within the Court's discretion to allow or disallow a reconversion of a case from chapter 7 back to Chapter 13.  However, in this case, the Debtors failed to demonstrate any facts which would persuade the Court to exercise its discretion to allow reconversion of their case.

Conversion, Published No

On a motion to reconsider a previous motion seeking to add Defendant's wife as co-defendant that was denied, the Court found the evidence presented did not constitute "good cause" to amend the scheduling order as the moving party knew or could have known, with the "exercise of due diligence," the facts prior to the deadline for filing a motion to amend the scheduling order. Furthermore, no cause existed under 60(b)(1) to reconsider the prior order as neglient mistake or carelessness does not provide a basis for relief from a judgment or order.

Reconsider/Amend, Published No

Following the Brunner  test, the Court concluded that the Defendants had not established facts in the record sufficient for the purposes of summary judgment to find that Plaintiff lacked good faith or that repayment of her student loans would not cause her undue hardship.  The Court would not find that no payment options in student loan repayment plans consitituted repayment under the Brunner  standard.

Discharge/Dischargeability, Published Yes


Subscribe to Opinions