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.

Trustee and Perdue Bioenergy filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the Trustee's preference action, Perdue's 11 U.S.C. 546(e) defense, and Perdue's 11 U.S.C. 547(c) defenses. Summary judgment was granted on the Trustee's preference action and denied on Perdue's 11 U.S.C. 547(c) defenses. Perdue's 11 U.S.C. 546(e) defense will be determined according to a further court order. 

Summary Judgment, Published No

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency d/b/a FedLoan Servicing ("PHEAA") filed motion to dismiss the complaint or alternatively to dismiss PHEAA from the adversary proceeding.  PHEAA was dismissed from the adversary proceeding as it is a servicer, not an owner, of the Plaintiff's student loans.

Dismissal, Published No

Two counts of the complaint, seeking determination of nondischargeability of debt pursuant to sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6), were untimely filed and dismissed.

Discharge/Dischargeability, Published No

Debtor objected to attorney's fees and expenses included in the claim of an oversecured creditor. Objection overruled under §506(b).

Claims, Published No

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


Subscribe to Opinions