Pro se creditor filed an objection to confirmation of debtors' proposed plan prior to the claims bar date, describing his claim against the debtors in that document After the claims deadline he filed a proof of claim in the amount of $3,210.00, requesting priority status. The debtors filed an objection to claim 11 of the creditor as untimely filed. The Fourth Circuit recognizes informal proof of claim where a creditor has taken some action that gives sufficient notice that the creditor has a claim against the estate. Davis v. Columbia Constr. Co., Inc. (In re Davis), 936 F.2d 771, 776 (4th Cir. 1991). The debtors' objection to claim as untimely filed is overruled and their objection to the claim as a priority claim is sustained. Creditor's claim is allowed as a general unsecured claim.
Opinions:
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.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
The court denied the Bankruptcy Administrator's motion to dismiss this case pursuant to sections 707(b)(1) and 707(b)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code; based on the totality of the Debtor's financial circumstances the court dtermined that the Debtor may remain in her Chapter 7 case and receive her discharge.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Objection to secured claim of second mortgage creditor overruled. The second mortgage creditor obtained a pre-petition state court judgment against the Debtor. The note evidencing the indebtedness owed to such creditor merged into the judgment. However, under North Carolina law the deed of trust securing the indebtedness remains in place.
(Judge: Benjamin A. Kahn)
Trustee brought this adversary proceeding against other parties to a trust agreement seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the defalcation of funds after the trustee failed to take custodial possession of the trust funds. The claims were for breach of contract against both Dealers Assurance Company (“Dealers”) and The Fidelity Bank (“Fidelity”), as well as numerous tort claims solely against Fidelity. Dealers asserted counterclaims against the estate for breach of contract. Dealers moved for summary judgment on Trustee’s breach of contract claim, as well as its two counterclaims against the estate under the same contracts. In support of its motion for summary judgment on Trustee’s breach of contract claim, Dealers asserted that Trustee’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations, there is no evidence it breached the contracts or caused Debtor any damages, and the knowledge of Debtor’s agent, combined with Dealers’ lack of knowledge of the transfer of the trust funds out of trust, defeat any claim of equitable estoppel. Fidelity moved for summary judgment on all of Trustee’s claims against it. Fidelity raised several defenses, including the actions and knowledge of Debtor’s agent, and that Debtor, as grantor of the trust, could not have suffered any damages because the trust funds that Fidelity represented it originally received were misappropriated long before Fidelity became trustee. Fidelity further argued that any claims in tort are barred by North Carolina’s economic loss rule. The Court denied the motions for summary judgment.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Defendant repossessed Plaintiffs' vehicle postpetition and failed to return it despite numerous requests. Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages, attorney's fees, and punitive damages from the Defendant.
(Judge: Catharine R. Aron)
The Court denied a motion to dismiss case or change venue, finding that, in light of the procedural posture of the case, the motion was untimely filed.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
The Bankruptcy Administrator filed a motion to dismiss the Debtors' case pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 1307(c) based on a lack of good faith in light of the misrepresentations and omissions in their schedules. In their case the Debtors provided timely responses to the auditor, provided creditble explanations for their omissions and misstatements, and promptly amended their schedules. Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case , a dismissal on the basis of bad faith is not warranted.
(Judge: Catharine R. Aron)
Court granted motion to dismiss complaint with prejudice in light of confirmed chapter 11 plan.
(Judge: Catharine R. Aron)
Motion for sanctions for violation of the automatic stay denied. There was no violation of the automatic stay as the property at issue was not §541 property of the bankruptcy estate.
(Judge: Catharine R. Aron)
Bankruptcy case transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 due to improper venue.
Pages
Printer-friendly version