4th Cir.: Wesker v. Bank of America- Failure to State Claims following Denial of Mortgage Modification Application Ed Boltz Fri, 12/20/2024 - 15:40 Summary: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mark and Natasha Wesker’s claims against Bank of America. The Weskers alleged the bank mishandled their application for a modification of their home equity line of credit, leading to financial harm and damage to their credit score. The Weskers asserted the following claims against Bank of America: Professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation Detrimental reliance Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations (negligent and willful) Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) violation Tort Claims (Negligence and Misrepresentation): The court held that under Maryland law, a bank owes no duty of care in handling loan modification applications unless there is contractual privity or "special circumstances." Here, the Weskers failed to establish either because neither the line of credit contract imposed  any modification obligations on Bank of America nor did Bank of America  provide any extraordinary services or derive abnormal benefits. As to detrimental reliance, the Weskers failed to allege any "clear and definite" promises made by the bank that could support their claim.  Bank of America's reporting of the Weskers’ delinquency and charge-off to credit agencies was found to be accurate, with  no basis to challenge the completeness or accuracy of the reporting under the FCRA. The Weskers’ allegations also did not meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud under Rule 9(b), which was required for a deceptive practices claim under tort and the MCPA.  Commentary: For other cases related to when a mortgage lender can and cannot be held liable,  see: Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Alvarez Bankr. E.D.N.C.: McClendon v. Walter Home Mortgage Bankr. M.D.N.C.: Rutledge v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.   With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document wesker_v._bank_of_america.pdf (202.24 KB) Category 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Law Review: Mary J. (Newborn) Wiggins, The New Rawlsian Theory of Bankruptcy Ethics, 16 CARDOZO L. REV. 111 (1994) Ed Boltz Fri, 12/20/2024 - 15:34 Available at:    https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/clr/vol16/iss1/5 Abstract: Bankruptcy law was once considered a rather insular subspecialty of commercial and debtor-creditor law. Bankruptcy scholars of an earlier time devoted their main energies to drafting bankruptcy legislation for Congress, mastering the particulars of that legislation, and systematizing the case law. When these scholars attempted to local larger themes in bankruptcy, they labored with great deference to positive expressions of bankruptcy’s purpose. Bankruptcy law’s relative insularity began to fade with the innovative work of Professor Thomas Jackson, who developed what he argued was a comprehensive theoretical explanation for bankruptcy’s existence. His explanation was based on a contractual paradigm called “the creditor’s bargain.” Several bankruptcy scholars, most prominently Elizabeth Warren and David Gray Carlson, have challenged the creditor’s bargain model on several fronts, but a direct theoretical assault was slow to emerge until Professor Donald Korobkin presented a nascent theory based upon what he called a “values-based account” of bankruptcy. Professor Korobkin then buttressed the values-based account with a contractarian model of his own called “the bankruptcy choice model.” In this Article, Professor Newborn explores Professor Korobkin’s theoretical model, distinguishes his model from the creditor’s bargain model, and identifies the significant descriptive and analytical insights Professor Korobkin’s bankruptcy choice model generates. At the same time, Professor Newborn identifies several controversial assumptions that seriously undermine the theory’s explanatory and normative force. Professor Newborn concludes with thoughts on her Article’s implications for the role of highly theoretical claims in bankruptcy scholarship. Commentary: I generally  stick to just blogging about recent cases and law review articles,  but I tend to nerd out about papers that look at the philosophy undergirding bankruptcy and when I stumbled on this about John Rawls and Bankruptcy Ethics,  even though 30 years old,  I couldn't help but share it. Building on even earlier work by  Donald R. Korobkin, including Rehabilitating Values: A Jurisprudence of Bankruptcy, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 717, 721 (1991),  this paper posits two Rawlsian two principles to govern relationships in financial distress:  The Principle of Inclusion"  through which each party- creditors and debtors- affected by financial distress should have the threshold eligibility to press his or her demands in that context; and  The Principle of Rational Planning which First seeks to maximize (i.e., promote most fully and effectively) those diverse demands   by using a rational plan.  Second,  mandates that when it is impossible to promote one aim without frustrating another, protects  those in the worst-off positions in the context of financial distress  over those occupying the better-off positions. Unlike the principle of creditor wealth maximization, promoted by Douglas Baird and Thomas Jackson elsewhere as an ethical or philosophical basis for bankruptcy, the principle of rational planning does not filter all decisions 'through a prism of creditor prosperity. For something more recent about John Rawls' theory of justice (including a little bit about bankruptcy),  I also highly recommend Free and Equal: A Manifesto for a Just Society  by Daniel Chandler. To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document rawlsian_bankruptcy_ethics_compressed-1-16.pdf (910.03 KB) Document rawlsian_bankruptcy_ethics_compressed-17-37.pdf (746.91 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

More than four decades after the Bankruptcy Code was enacted, we are still tripping over the lingering conundrums of Chapter 13. Four decades, and appeals courts haven’t brought clarity and predictability to what should be a simple, well understood process for individuals to reorganize their financial lives. I speak of course about the mysteries of […] The post Still Crazy After All These Years appeared first on Bankruptcy Mastery.

Contributions to an employer-sponsored retirement plan going forward are excluded from disposable income in Chapter 13, says the 9th Circuit in Sadana, 19 years after BAPCPA became law. What took so long? Words in the statute matter Congress, in its BAPCPA-typical awkward fashion, said right there, in 541(b)(7)’s hanging paragraph, that amounts withheld for voluntary […] The post Voluntary Retirement Contributions Not Disposable Income in the 9th appeared first on Bankruptcy Mastery.

Every extra dollar deduction you can wring out on bankruptcy’s means test is important. A dollar doesn’t sound like a lot, but an extra dollar less in DMI saves a Chapter 13 debtor $60 over the life of a 60 month plan. Every $100 saves $6000. You get the picture. Besides lowering the cost of […] The post How to Wring Out Every Last Means Test Deduction appeared first on Bankruptcy Mastery.

Law Review: Laura B. Bartell, The Continuing Problem of Continuing Concealment – Ignoring the Language and Policy of § 727(a)(2)(A), 98 AM. BANKR. L J. 50 (2024). Ed Boltz Wed, 12/18/2024 - 16:33 Available at: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1605&context=lawfrp Abstract: Individual debtors who file for bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code1 are entitled to receive a discharge unless one of the grounds for denying a discharge set forth in § 727(a) is established.  Section 727(a)(2) of the Code directs the court to deny a discharge if: (2) the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under this title, has transferred. removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed, or has permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed – (A)  property of the debtor, within one year before the date  of the filing of the petition; or (B) property of the estate, after the date of the filing of the petition.2 For many years courts have applied the doctrine of “continuing concealment” to deny discharges to chapter 7 debtors who took an act to conceal property more than one year before the filing date and continued to reap the rewards of that concealment during the one-year period.3  In this article I suggest that the doctrine of “continuing concealment” is not justified by the language of § 727(a)(2) (or its predecessor provision in the Bankruptcy Act of 18984) and should be rejected. I will first set out the statutory history of § 727(a)(2), followed by a description of the case law interpreting the term “concealed,” and the  development of the concept of “continuing concealment.” I will then discuss what I think is wrong with the doctrine of continuing concealment as applied to the discharge provision. There are four parts to this argument.  First, I maintain that the definition of “conceal” does not include the types of transactions described as supporting continuing concealment.  Second, the statute permits denial of discharge only if the debtor has concealed property of the debtor, yet the cases dealing with continuing concealment often do not involve concealment of property of the debtor.  Third, the statutory limit on the time within which the debtor must have concealed property is not a statute of limitations, but an element of the act that bars discharge, and Congress never made the act a continuing one.  Fourth, the inclusion of the word “concealed” in the context of the other prohibited acts in section 727(a)(2) makes clear that it refers to the debtor’s act of concealing property, not the property’s state of being concealed. This interpretation is bolstered by the inclusion of the one-year period applicable to those acts.  Therefore, I conclude that the continuing concealment doctrine has no basis in the language or policy of the discharge provisions of the Code and should be jettisoned by the courts.  Commentary: It is a nice piece of legal jujitsu how this article turns the requirement by the Supreme Court In City of Chicago v. Fulton  for there to be an affirmative act by the creditor for a finding that it violated the automatic stay  to also argue that "concealment" under 11 USC 727  also requires an affirmative act.  Whether any courts will hold their nose over the stink of past behavoirs and grant discharges,  seems unlikely. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document the_continuing_problem_of_continuing_concealment_ignoring_the_l.pdf (580.75 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

E.D.N.C.: Williams v. Burnett- Denial of Interlocutory Appeal Ed Boltz Mon, 12/16/2024 - 19:18 Summary: In a case where confirmation appears to have denied because the Debtor sought to maintain direct payments of  $1,227.16/month on an automobile, the debtor sought an interlocutory appeal to the district court as  denial of confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan is not a final order appealable as of right. Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 503 (2015). Following  In re Biltmore Invs., Ltd., 538 B.R. 706, 713 (W.D.N.C. 2015),  the district court denied leave to maintain interlocutory appeal  as, even if the order involved a controlling question of law on which substantial ground for difference exists, the Debtor failed to meet his burden to show exceptional circumstances, or that an immediate appeal would advance the litigation Commentary: The Debtor can also attempt to advance an appeal by proposing a plan that would be acceptable to the court and trustee and then object to that confirmation himself.  Whether that would require the surrender of the vehicle (risking the further denial of a stay pending appeal)  or a substantially higher dividend,  is unclear. The Debtor testified that he is working 120+ hours a week at multiple jobs,  but that likely unsustainable level of work does not appear to have been persuasive, perhaps because the Debtor may still be providing substantial support to multiple family members, has large tax claims and used much of the debt incurred to repair and improve his house. While certainly not required,  the Debtor in this case proposed,  contrary to the  custom of the court,  to pay both this vehicle claim and the mortgage directly.  Whether the Debtor would have fared better if these were paid through the Chapter 13 plan,  giving the Trustee an additional dividend,   a dirty question that no one likes to ask. Additionally,  the Debtor  has nearly $600,000 in general unsecured claims and more than $100,000 in priority claims (even though there was less than $270,000 total scheduled.)  Unmentioned in this case seems to be that the Debtor is substantially above the current Chapter 13 debt limit. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document williams_v._burnett.pdf (576.78 KB) Category Eastern District

Bankruptcy Timing & The Holidays With Thanksgiving 2024 already come and gone, the winter holidays are just around the corner. These are times of joy with family, food, and celebration, but making the holiday season special can be difficult if you’re on a tight budget or struggle with debt. Bankruptcy provides protection from creditors in an instant and eventually allows the debtor to clear or pay off their debts while under court supervision. This could be just what you and your family need to stabilize your finances, especially during a hectic time like the holidays. On the flip side, preparing for and celebrating the holidays could draw your focus away from key aspects in your case or trigger certain limitations that would make it better to wait to file your case, if possible. If you are unsure after reading this article, you can have your debt evaluated by one of our experienced Phoenix and Tucson bankruptcy lawyers. Schedule your free consultation today by calling 480-470-1504.  Holiday Case Delays Some debtors have the goal of discharging their cases as expediently as possible. If this is a bankruptcy debtor’s primary objective, the holidays might not be the right time to file. The court sometimes has shortened hours around the holidays, and is closed on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. You might find that a case filed around the holidays takes slightly longer to complete. However, the difference might not be drastic, and activating protection from the automatic stay might be more important to you than achieving a rapid discharge. And just like the courts, your attorney could be backlogged by holiday filings. They could have travel and time with family in their schedule during the holidays, just like you. Last-minute filings might be more difficult to pull off during the holiday season, but they are manageable with careful planning. To schedule your free consultation with a member of our Arizona bankruptcy team, call 480-470-1504.  Credit Card Spending Limits Before Bankruptcy If you’re considering bankruptcy, you might be tempted to max out your credit cards on extravagant gifts for your loved ones, since they will be discharged soon anyway. But bankruptcy is not meant to discharge debts that you never had any intention to repay. The bankruptcy trustee will be on the lookout for these types of abuses of the bankruptcy system, namely by reviewing your credit card statements prior to filing for bankruptcy. You will need to watch your credit card spending for 90 days or more prior to filing your petition. You shouldn’t exceed $850 in luxury purchases on your credit cards during that time. You also need to avoid cash advances of $1,100 or more 75 days before filing your bankruptcy petition. These expenditures also create the risk that you are keeping non-exempt funds on your person in an attempt to conceal them from the bankruptcy trustee.  During the holidays, you probably buy more gifts and spend more on festive meals than you do throughout the rest of the year. This can make it tricky to differentiate what is reasonable spending, and what is considered luxury spending. Before filing for bankruptcy, your purchases should be limited to those that are reasonably necessary for your maintenance and support. Picking up a meal from Subway or some clothes from your kids from Target should pass the trustee’s review without much pushback. But if the trustee reviews your credit card statements and sees you’ve been eating out at restaurants every night and shopping at Nordstrom, this could trigger further review. Most travel expenses, like flights, taxis, etc., are considered luxury purchases unless incurred for matters like business or a family funeral. Don’t go to pricier grocery stores like Whole Foods while shopping for your holiday meals. If you are ever unsure about whether a purchase you wish to make is a luxury or reasonably necessary, you should run it by your bankruptcy attorney first. For your free consultation with one of Arizona’s top choices for Zero Down bankruptcy representation, call 480-470-1504.   How Long Will My Case Last? Your credit cards and other lines of credit will be frozen and lost upon filing for bankruptcy. If this is how you are planning on paying your expenses during the holiday season, you should hold off on filing your bankruptcy until the new year. But if it can’t wait, it’s important to understand how long you are signing up to be in an active bankruptcy case. Chapter 13 bankruptcy has set time frames, while chapter 7 bankruptcy finishes faster but is more variable.  Chapter 13 bankruptcy reorganizes debts into a payment plan. The payment plan’s length depends on the debtor’s income level. If the debtor earns less than the state median income for their household size or passes the means test- in other words, qualifies for chapter 7 bankruptcy- their chapter 13 payment plan will last three years. If the debtor’s income exceeds both of these tests, their chapter 13 payment plan will last five years. A chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor needs to be prepared for both the benefits and limitations provided by the automatic stay for multiple years.  Chapter 7 bankruptcy takes months to complete rather than years. We generally tell clients to expect their cases to take three to six months, although extenuating factors could always affect a case’s lifespan. A chapter 7 debtor who wants to complete their case quickly should be sure to stay current on all communications with their attorney and trustee. Another common reason that chapter 7 cases are delayed is because the debtor fails to appear at their 341 Meeting of Creditors or has insufficient identification with them at the hearing. Make sure you are fully prepared for this hearing by having your forms of identification available when you file your petition, and if your hearing is remote, test your software and microphone before the hearing.  Holiday Gifts & Bonuses With a bankruptcy filed around the holidays, it’s important to remember how filing can affect gifts and bonuses you receive from others. Gifts and bonuses received shortly before or after filing might not be protected by Arizona’s bankruptcy exemptions. For example, Arizona’s bankruptcy exemption for cash on hand is $300 for an individual debtor. Gifts higher than this amount could be considered part of the bankruptcy estate. Here, the money would be used to pay back creditors rather than remain in the debtor’s wallet. If you expect to receive a large gift or bonus during the holiday season, you should discuss the potential impact this could have on your case with your bankruptcy attorney.  Looking For A Budget-Friendly Way To Declare Bankruptcy Around The Holidays? If you’re unfamiliar with the bankruptcy process, you should have a professional review your situation to determine when the best time is to file your case. Your budget might be especially tight during the holidays, making it difficult to pay your bankruptcy expenses in full before filing, like most firms require. However, our Arizona bankruptcy team offers Zero Down payment plan options for eligible clients. This allows you to enjoy all the benefits of bankruptcy while paying for it in affordable monthly installments. Clear your debts and start the new year with a clean slate by filing for chapter 7 or chapter 13 bankruptcy in Arizona. Get started with your free consultation with our firm today at 480-470-1504. MY AZ LAWYERS Email: [email protected] Website: www.myazlawyers.com Mesa Location 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: 480-448-9800 Phoenix Location 343 West Roosevelt, Suite #100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Office: 602-609-7000 Glendale Location 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: 602-509-0955 Tucson Location 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: 520-441-1450 Avondale Location 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: 623-469-6603 The post Bankruptcy Timing & The Holidays appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

Bankruptcy Timing & The Holidays With Thanksgiving 2024 already come and gone, the winter holidays are just around the corner. These are times of joy with family, food, and celebration, but making the holiday season special can be difficult if you’re on a tight budget or struggle with debt. Bankruptcy provides protection from creditors in an instant and eventually allows the debtor to clear or pay off their debts while under court supervision. This could be just what you and your family need to stabilize your finances, especially during a hectic time like the holidays. On the flip side, preparing for and celebrating the holidays could draw your focus away from key aspects in your case or trigger certain limitations that would make it better to wait to file your case, if possible. If you are unsure after reading this article, you can have your debt evaluated by one of our experienced Phoenix and Tucson bankruptcy lawyers. Schedule your free consultation today by calling 480-470-1504.  Holiday Case Delays Some debtors have the goal of discharging their cases as expediently as possible. If this is a bankruptcy debtor’s primary objective, the holidays might not be the right time to file. The court sometimes has shortened hours around the holidays, and is closed on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. You might find that a case filed around the holidays takes slightly longer to complete. However, the difference might not be drastic, and activating protection from the automatic stay might be more important to you than achieving a rapid discharge. And just like the courts, your attorney could be backlogged by holiday filings. They could have travel and time with family in their schedule during the holidays, just like you. Last-minute filings might be more difficult to pull off during the holiday season, but they are manageable with careful planning. To schedule your free consultation with a member of our Arizona bankruptcy team, call 480-470-1504.  Credit Card Spending Limits Before Bankruptcy If you’re considering bankruptcy, you might be tempted to max out your credit cards on extravagant gifts for your loved ones, since they will be discharged soon anyway. But bankruptcy is not meant to discharge debts that you never had any intention to repay. The bankruptcy trustee will be on the lookout for these types of abuses of the bankruptcy system, namely by reviewing your credit card statements prior to filing for bankruptcy. You will need to watch your credit card spending for 90 days or more prior to filing your petition. You shouldn’t exceed $850 in luxury purchases on your credit cards during that time. You also need to avoid cash advances of $1,100 or more 75 days before filing your bankruptcy petition. These expenditures also create the risk that you are keeping non-exempt funds on your person in an attempt to conceal them from the bankruptcy trustee.  During the holidays, you probably buy more gifts and spend more on festive meals than you do throughout the rest of the year. This can make it tricky to differentiate what is reasonable spending, and what is considered luxury spending. Before filing for bankruptcy, your purchases should be limited to those that are reasonably necessary for your maintenance and support. Picking up a meal from Subway or some clothes from your kids from Target should pass the trustee’s review without much pushback. But if the trustee reviews your credit card statements and sees you’ve been eating out at restaurants every night and shopping at Nordstrom, this could trigger further review. Most travel expenses, like flights, taxis, etc., are considered luxury purchases unless incurred for matters like business or a family funeral. Don’t go to pricier grocery stores like Whole Foods while shopping for your holiday meals. If you are ever unsure about whether a purchase you wish to make is a luxury or reasonably necessary, you should run it by your bankruptcy attorney first. For your free consultation with one of Arizona’s top choices for Zero Down bankruptcy representation, call 480-470-1504.   How Long Will My Case Last? Your credit cards and other lines of credit will be frozen and lost upon filing for bankruptcy. If this is how you are planning on paying your expenses during the holiday season, you should hold off on filing your bankruptcy until the new year. But if it can’t wait, it’s important to understand how long you are signing up to be in an active bankruptcy case. Chapter 13 bankruptcy has set time frames, while chapter 7 bankruptcy finishes faster but is more variable.  Chapter 13 bankruptcy reorganizes debts into a payment plan. The payment plan’s length depends on the debtor’s income level. If the debtor earns less than the state median income for their household size or passes the means test- in other words, qualifies for chapter 7 bankruptcy- their chapter 13 payment plan will last three years. If the debtor’s income exceeds both of these tests, their chapter 13 payment plan will last five years. A chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor needs to be prepared for both the benefits and limitations provided by the automatic stay for multiple years.  Chapter 7 bankruptcy takes months to complete rather than years. We generally tell clients to expect their cases to take three to six months, although extenuating factors could always affect a case’s lifespan. A chapter 7 debtor who wants to complete their case quickly should be sure to stay current on all communications with their attorney and trustee. Another common reason that chapter 7 cases are delayed is because the debtor fails to appear at their 341 Meeting of Creditors or has insufficient identification with them at the hearing. Make sure you are fully prepared for this hearing by having your forms of identification available when you file your petition, and if your hearing is remote, test your software and microphone before the hearing.  Holiday Gifts & Bonuses With a bankruptcy filed around the holidays, it’s important to remember how filing can affect gifts and bonuses you receive from others. Gifts and bonuses received shortly before or after filing might not be protected by Arizona’s bankruptcy exemptions. For example, Arizona’s bankruptcy exemption for cash on hand is $300 for an individual debtor. Gifts higher than this amount could be considered part of the bankruptcy estate. Here, the money would be used to pay back creditors rather than remain in the debtor’s wallet. If you expect to receive a large gift or bonus during the holiday season, you should discuss the potential impact this could have on your case with your bankruptcy attorney.  Looking For A Budget-Friendly Way To Declare Bankruptcy Around The Holidays? If you’re unfamiliar with the bankruptcy process, you should have a professional review your situation to determine when the best time is to file your case. Your budget might be especially tight during the holidays, making it difficult to pay your bankruptcy expenses in full before filing, like most firms require. However, our Arizona bankruptcy team offers Zero Down payment plan options for eligible clients. This allows you to enjoy all the benefits of bankruptcy while paying for it in affordable monthly installments. Clear your debts and start the new year with a clean slate by filing for chapter 7 or chapter 13 bankruptcy in Arizona. Get started with your free consultation with our firm today at 480-470-1504. MY AZ LAWYERS Email: [email protected] Website: www.myazlawyers.com Mesa Location 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: 480-448-9800 Phoenix Location 343 West Roosevelt, Suite #100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Office: 602-609-7000 Glendale Location 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: 602-509-0955 Tucson Location 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: 520-441-1450 Avondale Location 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: 623-469-6603 The post Bankruptcy Timing & The Holidays appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

In re Randolph- No Common Law Exemption for Firearms Ed Boltz Tue, 12/03/2024 - 16:33 Summary: The bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina sustained  the Chapter 13 trustee’s objection to the debtors' attempt to exempt two firearms under the "arms for muster" exemption, based on North Carolina common law. The Randolphs argued that this exemption, which they believed to have originated from as far back pre-colonial common law, was still valid under N.C.G.S § 1C-1601(f). The trustee objected, contending that no common law "arms for muster" exemption existed or, if it had existed, was no longer valid due to subsequent statutory codifications. The court reviewed historical statutes and common law and concluded that while an exemption for "arms for muster" may have existed in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was later codified into statutory law and eventually removed in the early 1900s. The court found that the statutory "arms for muster" exemption was obsolete as it had been supplanted and later eliminated, and thus, no current exemption under North Carolina law allows the debtors to specifically claim their firearms as exempt on this basis, although wildcard or household goods exemptions were still available for firearms.  Commentary: While a minor loss for debtors (as this had no impact on their plan),  this opinion is still valuable both in being perhaps the first to recognize that there is a depth of legislative history in North Carolina regarding exemptions (that is also chaotic and seriously problematic to the point  of being repugnant) but also  in pointing the North Carolina legislature in the direction of exemption  reform. With N.C.G.S § 1C-1601(f)  still explicitly providing that "[t]he exemptions provided by common law of this State shall apply for purposes of The Bankruptcy Code" the hunt to  find what such exemptions are continues (because surely the North Carolina legislature did not go off half-cocked and include superfluous language),  even without any explicitly protected arms for muster with which to do such hunting. With proper attribution,  please share this post.    To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document in_re_randolph.pdf (307.16 KB) Category Eastern District