Filing for bankruptcy provides relief from financial distress and debt, but how often can you benefit from that relief? If you filed for bankruptcy in the past, call our lawyers to see whether or not you can file again now or if you may have to wait longer. You may file for bankruptcy multiple times, though there are mandatory waiting periods between filings. These waiting periods sometimes last years. If your case is dismissed, you can likely refile immediately with our help. While you can file for bankruptcy many times, there are consequences potential consequences of doing so, which our lawyers can explain. If your initial bankruptcy case is successful, you can avoid future financial distress. Call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 701-6519 for a free case analysis from our Pennsylvania bankruptcy lawyers. Can You File for Bankruptcy Multiple Times in Pennsylvania? There’s no limit on how many times you can file for bankruptcy in your life, though you may have to wait between filings. Bankruptcy is a legal tool designed to help people regain their financial footing, and you can reap the benefits of it time and time again. That said, if you navigate bankruptcy right the first time, you should not have to file again anytime soon. When you exit bankruptcy, all dischargeable debts should be erased, and you should have repaid any non-dischargeable debts, whether through asset liquidation or a repayment plan. There are downsides to having to file for bankruptcy multiple times in a relatively short period. Though bankruptcy helps you get out of debt, it also negatively affects your credit score, which might already be in freefall because of your financial situation. Bankruptcies also remain on your credit report for several years, and having multiple bankruptcy filings back-to-back could make it harder to get approved for credit cards, mortgages, or anything from lenders. Do You Have to Wait a Specific Time Between Bankruptcy Filings in Pennsylvania? While you can file for bankruptcy as many times as you need to, there are mandatory waiting periods between filings. For example, if you have previously filed Chapter 7 and wish to file it again, you must wait eight years from the initial filing date to do so and get a discharge. This long wait period exists because many debts are quickly discharged in Chapter 7 cases, and mandating eight years between filings helps prevent the abuse of debt discharges. If you previously filed a Chapter 7 case and now want to file Chapter 13, you must wait four years from the initial filing date to refile and get a discharge. While Chapter 7 requires the liquidation of assets, Chapter 13 employs repayment plans that debtors follow over the next three to five years, hence the shorter mandatory waiting period between these filings. There is no mandatory waiting period between Chapter 13 cases and a new Chapter 7 case where all debts (or at least 70% with best efforts) are paid. If you did not pay off your Chapter 13 in full, you have to wait six years. And, if you previously filed Chapter 13 and need to again, you only have to wait two years. Can You Refile for Bankruptcy if Your Case Gets Dismissed? Bankruptcy cases might get dismissed when debtors don’t comply with repayment plans or liquidation requirements. Creditors might even petition the court to dismiss a bankruptcy case so they can pursue litigation, garnish wages, or continue other intense debt-collection efforts. If your case gets dismissed, you may not have to wait until you refile it. However, if you refile within the same year, the automatic stay may only remain in effect for 30 days. The automatic stay prevents creditors from garnishing your wages, sending threatening communications, and foreclosing your house or repossessing your car. Our Philadelphia bankruptcy lawyers may be able to extend the automatic stay in these cases by filing motions in court, even if debtors have had bankruptcy cases dismissed multiple times in the past year. How Can You Avoid Having to File for Bankruptcy Many Times in Pennsylvania? Each time you file for bankruptcy, your credit score lowers. Avoiding more bankruptcy filings in the near future is possible when you approach your initial case the right way. Properly organizing debts, filing the right bankruptcy chapter, taking credit counseling courses, and completing your initial case help set you up for success. Organize Debt We can make sure all your current debts are included in your bankruptcy case. Let us organize your debts, list them out, identify creditors, and prepare all necessary financial information for your bankruptcy petition and the case that follows. We will explain which debts are dischargeable and which aren’t and what that means for your case. File the Right Chapter Filing the appropriate bankruptcy chapter also helps your initial case succeed. We will determine whether Chapter 7 or 13 is right for you based on the type of debt you have, the size of it, your income, and your expenses. We can then prepare and file the right bankruptcy petition for your chapter to initiate the case. Take Credit Counseling Courses You must take credit counseling courses within 180 days of filing for bankruptcy in Pennsylvania. Take advantage of these courses, which teach strategies for managing money and avoiding falling back into debt. Complete Your Initial Case By completing your initial bankruptcy case, you may avoid future filings. We can include all creditors and debts in your first filing and prepare a repayment or liquidation plan that provides long-term relief. If debtors agree to unfair repayment plans, they may struggle to meet the terms, which could lead to case dismissals and other issues. Let us work on your initial bankruptcy case in Pennsylvania. We will waste no time in reviewing your debts, preparing the bankruptcy petition, and devising the best path of repayment for you. Call Our Bankruptcy Attorneys in Pennsylvania Now Call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 701-6519 for a free case review from our Bucks County, PA bankruptcy lawyers today.

Bankr. W.D.N.C.: In re Rice- Single Estate Rule Precludes Effort to Avoid 109(g) restriction Ed Boltz Thu, 06/19/2025 - 14:28 Summary: In In re Rice, the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismissed a Chapter 13 case filed by Mr. Rice and barred him from refiling another bankruptcy for 180 days due to serial filings and intentional abuse of the bankruptcy system. This was Rice’s third Chapter 13 in six years, during which he had been continuously under the protection of the court—though never successfully completing a plan. The case’s fatal flaw arose when Rice filed his third petition while his second case was still pending. That second case was subject to dismissal for missed payments, and had already seen two creditors granted relief from stay. Filing a new case while another is pending violates the “single estate rule,” which prohibits maintaining two simultaneous bankruptcy estates. Rice and his attorney deliberately filed the new petition before the previous case’s dismissal to avoid the 180-day filing bar in § 109(g)(2), which would have applied had he voluntarily dismissed after creditors obtained stay relief. The court found that this tactic, though perhaps “clever,” constituted bad faith, especially when paired with his history of non-payment, repeated unsuccessful filings, and an attempt to stretch a nine-year-old car loan into a 14-year repayment. Despite the debtor’s attorney claiming the strategy aimed to help rather than evade, the court saw it as a willful manipulation of the Code, not merely a technical error. Importantly, the court emphasized that it would have imposed the very same 180-day bar under § 109(g)(2) had Rice followed the normal course, and refused to allow intentional circumvention of that statutory outcome. The court acknowledged the emphasis in Sugar v. Burnett  on considering the role of counsel but concluded that even if Rice’s attorney concocted the plan, the debtor bore responsibility and dismissal with a 180-day bar was both warranted and equitable. Commentary: The decision reads as a warning to both debtors and particularly attorneys: even in the absence of outright dishonesty, intentional procedural end-runs—particularly ones meant to dodge statutory sanctions—may be met with (fairly) strict  scrutiny despite Sugar' .  While not cited,  the 4th Circuit's  even more recent affirmation of a 10-year bar to refiling in Purdy v. Burnett  seems to also echo in this case. To read a copy of the transcript, please see:   With proper attribution,  please share this post.  Blog comments Attachment Document in_re_rice.pdf (420.24 KB) Category Western District

If your financial situation is nearing an emergency and you need to file for bankruptcy quickly, contact our lawyers before filing a “skeleton case” with minimal information. If you don’t give all the documents and paperwork associated with a regular bankruptcy, you might jeopardize your case. Skeleton or emergency bankruptcy filings are common when debtors are facing foreclosure or another harmful debt collection act from creditors. Filing for bankruptcy gives you an automatic stay, and an emergency filing may only contain core bankruptcy documents. That automatic stay may not last forever if creditors successfully motion to lift it. The risk of successful creditor motions to lift stays or dismiss cases increases when debtors rush filing, so let us prepare a strong and complete bankruptcy case for you. Call our bankruptcy lawyers at (215) 701-6519 or (609) 755-3115 for help with your case from Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates. How Do Emergency and Regular Bankruptcy Filings Differ? Emergency bankruptcy filings are bare-bones cases. Debtors submit the core bankruptcy documents in the hopes of getting an automatic stay. This would immediately pause all collection efforts from creditors, which is one of the major benefits of bankruptcy. Reason for Filing While all bankruptcies are because of debt, considering filing an emergency bankruptcy means you need urgent relief. The automatic stay stops ongoing foreclosure proceedings, wage garnishment, and vehicle repossession, all of which add to debtors’ distress. Bankruptcy can even stop an impending sheriff’s sale of a foreclosed home because of the automatic stay. Although our bankruptcy lawyers understand that debtors want immediate relief from an automatic stay, rushing to file is inadvisable. Although you might temporarily stop foreclosure, creditors may successfully motion to lift the automatic stay or dismiss the case if you are not prepared. Creditors should warn you about car repossession, foreclosure, and even wage garnishment before it begins. When you get those warnings, you can call our lawyers. We can begin preparing your bankruptcy case immediately and file it as soon as possible without rushing the process. Then, you can benefit from an automatic stay and other features of bankruptcy and avoid risking case dismissal. Initial Documents Emergency bankruptcy filings typically only contain the core bankruptcy documents. Debtors must submit a bankruptcy petition, a creditor matrix, a creditor counseling certification or waiver, and a Statement of Social Security Number. There may be additional paperwork required upon filing a skeleton or emergency bankruptcy case, and judges may dismiss petitions if all the necessary information is not provided. When you file a regular bankruptcy petition, you include most core documents from the get-go. This includes all the aforementioned documents and others, many of which are specific to the bankruptcy chapter you are filing, whether Chapter 7 or 13. Debtors filing skeleton bankruptcy cases still need to submit all the required paperwork and documents for bankruptcy at some point. If they do not, their cases may be dismissed, which is why accomplishing this from the outset is beneficial. What Are the Similarities Between Emergency and Regular Bankruptcy Filings? No matter how quickly you file for bankruptcy, your case will go through the court, go on your credit report, and may end in a debt discharge. Go Through the Court All bankruptcy cases are processed through the court, regardless of whether they are emergency or regular filings. That means a judge oversees your bankruptcy case. The judge might dismiss incomplete petitions or skeleton cases that are too sparse upon filing. The judge may also hear motions from creditors to lift automatic stays or dismiss cases; therefore, debtors must be prepared to defend against such attempts. Go on Credit Report Bankruptcy always goes on your credit report. Whether an emergency filing is successful or not, such as when the judge dismisses it or the debtor fails to make the repayment, it will still be reported on their credit report. The dismissed case will also remain on your credit report for the same duration as a successful, regular bankruptcy case, typically seven to ten years, depending on the chapter filed. This is another reason why taking the time to file a bankruptcy case is important, as a dismissed case can also negatively impact your credit. Get a Debt Discharge At the end of any successful bankruptcy case, the debtor gets a debt discharge. Any unpaid dischargeable debts, such as medical and credit card debt, are erased. You may only receive a debt discharge if your emergency bankruptcy case is resolved and you repay all secured debts in full. If that doesn’t happen, you won’t get a debt discharge, whether in an emergency or regular bankruptcy filing. What if I Need to File Emergency Bankruptcy? Even if you need urgent relief from an automatic stay, do not rush to file a skeleton case without our lawyers. We can still file your case quickly, but not too quickly that it jeopardizes its success. If you are facing foreclosure, wage garnishment, or other stressful debt collection activities, please call us. We can review your debt and overall financial situation to devise the best path forward. That may be filing Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but you need to take the time to figure that out. Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidates your assets, so you should not file that chapter unless you are prepared for that result. Chapter 13 bankruptcy requires a repayment plan. Debtors must present repayment plans for the court’s approval within 14 days of filing a bankruptcy case. If you rush your case without knowing this, you might miss the deadline for submitting the repayment plan. If that happens, any creditor may motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case, and the judge might agree. Call for Help with Your Bankruptcy Case Now Call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 701-6519 or (609) 755-3115 to discuss your case for free with our Philadelphia bankruptcy lawyers.

If your financial situation is nearing an emergency and you need to file for bankruptcy quickly, contact our lawyers before filing a “skeleton case” with minimal information. If you don’t give all the documents and paperwork associated with a regular bankruptcy, you might jeopardize your case. Skeleton or emergency bankruptcy filings are common when debtors are facing foreclosure or another harmful debt collection act from creditors. Filing for bankruptcy gives you an automatic stay, and an emergency filing may only contain core bankruptcy documents. That automatic stay may not last forever if creditors successfully motion to lift it. The risk of successful creditor motions to lift stays or dismiss cases increases when debtors rush filing, so let us prepare a strong and complete bankruptcy case for you. Call our bankruptcy lawyers at (215) 701-6519 or (609) 755-3115 for help with your case from Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates. How Do Emergency and Regular Bankruptcy Filings Differ? Emergency bankruptcy filings are bare-bones cases. Debtors submit the core bankruptcy documents in the hopes of getting an automatic stay. This would immediately pause all collection efforts from creditors, which is one of the major benefits of bankruptcy. Reason for Filing While all bankruptcies are because of debt, considering filing an emergency bankruptcy means you need urgent relief. The automatic stay stops ongoing foreclosure proceedings, wage garnishment, and vehicle repossession, all of which add to debtors’ distress. Bankruptcy can even stop an impending sheriff’s sale of a foreclosed home because of the automatic stay. Although our bankruptcy lawyers understand that debtors want immediate relief from an automatic stay, rushing to file is inadvisable. Although you might temporarily stop foreclosure, creditors may successfully motion to lift the automatic stay or dismiss the case if you are not prepared. Creditors should warn you about car repossession, foreclosure, and even wage garnishment before it begins. When you get those warnings, you can call our lawyers. We can begin preparing your bankruptcy case immediately and file it as soon as possible without rushing the process. Then, you can benefit from an automatic stay and other features of bankruptcy and avoid risking case dismissal. Initial Documents Emergency bankruptcy filings typically only contain the core bankruptcy documents. Debtors must submit a bankruptcy petition, a creditor matrix, a creditor counseling certification or waiver, and a Statement of Social Security Number. There may be additional paperwork required upon filing a skeleton or emergency bankruptcy case, and judges may dismiss petitions if all the necessary information is not provided. When you file a regular bankruptcy petition, you include most core documents from the get-go. This includes all the aforementioned documents and others, many of which are specific to the bankruptcy chapter you are filing, whether Chapter 7 or 13. Debtors filing skeleton bankruptcy cases still need to submit all the required paperwork and documents for bankruptcy at some point. If they do not, their cases may be dismissed, which is why accomplishing this from the outset is beneficial. What Are the Similarities Between Emergency and Regular Bankruptcy Filings? No matter how quickly you file for bankruptcy, your case will go through the court, go on your credit report, and may end in a debt discharge. Go Through the Court All bankruptcy cases are processed through the court, regardless of whether they are emergency or regular filings. That means a judge oversees your bankruptcy case. The judge might dismiss incomplete petitions or skeleton cases that are too sparse upon filing. The judge may also hear motions from creditors to lift automatic stays or dismiss cases; therefore, debtors must be prepared to defend against such attempts. Go on Credit Report Bankruptcy always goes on your credit report. Whether an emergency filing is successful or not, such as when the judge dismisses it or the debtor fails to make the repayment, it will still be reported on their credit report. The dismissed case will also remain on your credit report for the same duration as a successful, regular bankruptcy case, typically seven to ten years, depending on the chapter filed. This is another reason why taking the time to file a bankruptcy case is important, as a dismissed case can also negatively impact your credit. Get a Debt Discharge At the end of any successful bankruptcy case, the debtor gets a debt discharge. Any unpaid dischargeable debts, such as medical and credit card debt, are erased. You may only receive a debt discharge if your emergency bankruptcy case is resolved and you repay all secured debts in full. If that doesn’t happen, you won’t get a debt discharge, whether in an emergency or regular bankruptcy filing. What if I Need to File Emergency Bankruptcy? Even if you need urgent relief from an automatic stay, do not rush to file a skeleton case without our lawyers. We can still file your case quickly, but not too quickly that it jeopardizes its success. If you are facing foreclosure, wage garnishment, or other stressful debt collection activities, please call us. We can review your debt and overall financial situation to devise the best path forward. That may be filing Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but you need to take the time to figure that out. Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidates your assets, so you should not file that chapter unless you are prepared for that result. Chapter 13 bankruptcy requires a repayment plan. Debtors must present repayment plans for the court’s approval within 14 days of filing a bankruptcy case. If you rush your case without knowing this, you might miss the deadline for submitting the repayment plan. If that happens, any creditor may motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case, and the judge might agree. Call for Help with Your Bankruptcy Case Now Call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 701-6519 or (609) 755-3115 to discuss your case for free with our Philadelphia bankruptcy lawyers.

4th Cir.: Emiabata v. Burnett- Improper Dismissal of Bankruptcy Appeal Ed Boltz Wed, 06/18/2025 - 15:43 Summary: In Emiabata v. Burnett, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of a Chapter 13 debtor’s appeal for failure to prosecute. The debtors, Sylvia and Philip Emiabata, timely appealed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of their Chapter 13 case but failed to follow through with essential procedural steps—namely filing a designation of record, statement of issues, and paying the filing fee. Upon recommendation from the bankruptcy court, the district court dismissed the appeal outright. The Emiabatas then appealed that dismissal. The Fourth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the balancing test mandated in In re Serra Builders, Inc., 970 F.2d 1309 (4th Cir. 1992), which governs dismissals for procedural failures in bankruptcy appeals. That test requires a court to: Make findings of bad faith or negligence, Give the appellant notice and an opportunity to explain the delay, Consider prejudice to the other parties, and Weigh the impact of dismissal versus other available sanctions. Because the district court did not explicitly consider any of these factors before imposing the "harsh sanction" of dismissal, the Fourth Circuit deemed it an abuse of discretion and remanded the case for proper analysis under Serra Builders. Commentary: Emiabata reinforces that even seemingly clear-cut failures to prosecute appeals must be handled with procedural care. The Fourth Circuit's insistence on the Serra Builders framework prevents summary dismissals from substituting for substantive judicial consideration—particularly when dealing with unsophisticated or pro se litigants. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document emiabata_v._burnett.pdf (113.75 KB) Document emiabata_notice_of_appeal.pdf (3.62 MB) Category 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

4th Cir.: Kovachevich v. NMIC- Voluntary Cancellation of Private Mortgage Insurance Stafford Patterson Tue, 06/17/2025 - 21:09 Available at:  Summary: In Kovachevich v. NMIC, the Fourth Circuit tackled an important question under the federal Homeowners Protection Act (HPA): whether a borrower is entitled to a refund of prepaid private mortgage insurance (PMI) premiums when PMI is cancelled not under one of the Act’s statutory benchmarks, but through a voluntary agreement. The court affirmed dismissal of the borrower’s HPA claim, holding that only statutory cancellations under 12 U.S.C. § 4902(a)-(c) trigger a right to refund under § 4902(f). However, it vacated the district court’s wholesale dismissal of the borrower’s state-law claims for unjust enrichment and conversion, remanding for consideration of supplemental jurisdiction. Kovachevich had prepaid PMI premiums as part of his 2020 mortgage, which was required due to his sub-20% down payment. In 2021, although he did not qualify for statutory cancellation under § 4902, his servicer agreed to a voluntary termination of PMI under § 4910(b). He then sought a pro-rated refund of the unearned premiums from NMIC, which was denied. Kovachevich sued under the HPA and state law. The district court dismissed the HPA claim, finding that voluntary cancellations did not qualify for the refund provision under § 4902(f), and dismissed the state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court on the core issue that   statutory refund rights are limited: The plain language of § 4902(f)(1) provides for refunds of “unearned premiums” only upon “termination or cancellation … under this section”—i.e., when triggered by the borrower meeting specific amortization benchmarks in § 4902(a)-(c). § 4902(f)(2) Tied to (f)(1): The second paragraph, which requires mortgage insurers to remit premiums to servicers for repayment, only applies “for repayment in accordance with paragraph (1).” Thus, if (f)(1) isn’t triggered, there is no duty to refund under (f)(2) either. Although § 4910(b) allows voluntary cancellations beyond the statutory scheme, it does not create a separate right to a refund. The court  however took issue with the district court’s categorical dismissal of Kovachevich’s state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction. Since federal courts have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to retain supplemental jurisdiction even after disposing of all federal claims, the panel remanded for the district court to exercise its discretion properly rather than treating jurisdiction as automatically lost. Commentary: Here  is a helpful table for statutory cancellation of PMI under the  Homeowners Protection Act: Trigger Condition Action Required § 4902(a) – Borrower Request UPB is 80% of Original Value + good payment history + current Borrower must request cancellation § 4902(b) – Automatic Termination UPB is 78% of Original Value  + current Automatic by servicer § 4902(c) – Midpoint Termination Midpoint of loan + current Automatic by servicer The statutory definition of a "good payment history"   is found at 12 U.S.C. § 4901(4): The term ‘good payment history’ means no payments 60 days past due in the 24 months preceding the cancellation request, and no payments 30 days past due in the 12 months preceding the cancellation request. For consumer bankruptcy attorneys  this should allow the borrower to request termination of the PMI once they have made 24 consecutive payments under a confirmed plan and reached the 20% equity mark. This could certainly be a nonstandard provision in a Chapter 13 plan: Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) Termination Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 4902(a): The Debtor has or will satisfy the conditions for borrower-requested cancellation of private mortgage insurance (PMI) under the Homeowners Protection Act (12 U.S.C. § 4902(a)). The mortgage servicer shall, upon written request by the Debtor and proof of eligibility, cancel PMI and cease collecting PMI premiums no later than 45 days after the Debtor reaches an unpaid principal balance equal to or less than 80% of the original value of the mortgaged property, provided the Debtor: (1) is current on payments pursuant to the confirmed plan at the time of the request; (2) has a good payment history as defined in 12 U.S.C. § 4901(4) and as evidenced by having made 24 consecutive and on-time payments under the confirmed plan; (3) certifies that the property value has not declined and has an unpaid principal balance of 80% of the original value of the home; and (4) certifies that the property is not subject to subordinate liens. Upon cancellation, any unearned PMI premiums, if applicable under federal or state law, shall be returned to the Debtor or applied to reduce the mortgage arrearage claim, as appropriate. The Chapter 13 Trustee shall adjust ongoing mortgage conduit payments and reduce the Chapter 13 plan payment accordingly once written confirmation of PMI cancellation is filed with the Court. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments

N.C. Ct. of App.: Palmetto RTC v. Fielden- Slander of Title and Lis Pendens Ed Boltz Fri, 06/13/2025 - 19:49 Summary: Palmetto RTC, LLC, a land entitlement firm, contracted to purchase a 61-acre tract in Union County from the Fielden family, with plans to simultaneously flip it to a third-party developer. When the transaction failed to close before the contractual deadline—and Palmetto’s end buyer never authorized performance—Palmetto attempted to preserve its position by filing suit and a lis pendens. The Fieldens, who had since pursued sale to a different developer, counterclaimed for slander of title. The trial court dismissed Palmetto’s unjust enrichment claim due to the existence of an express contract, and the jury returned a verdict for the Fieldens, including $152,001 in damages on their slander of title counterclaim. The trial court denied Palmetto’s motion for JNOV or a new trial. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, holding that the development efforts Palmetto claimed as extra-contractual were squarely contemplated in the express agreement. The court also affirmed the denial of JNOV, finding that while the Fieldens did not specifically plead the statutory slander of title under the Real Property Marketable Title Act, their notice pleading was sufficient to survive. However, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the slander of title claim. The Court held that the lis pendens filed by Palmetto was not a “registered notice” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47B-6, and therefore the statutory slander of title instruction was erroneous. Since a lis pendens is filed with the clerk of court—not the register of deeds—and is merely procedural rather than a substantive claim to title, it cannot support a statutory slander of title cause of action. As such, the case was remanded for retrial on the Fieldens’ slander of title counterclaim, presumably under the common law theory requiring proof of malice and falsity. Commentary: The careful parsing of the statutory framework under the Real Property Marketable Title Act by the Court of Appeals shows a subtle but critical clarification: filing a lis pendens is not the same as recording a notice under the Act. Practitioners representing land developers or disgruntled buyers should take heed—not every filing with the court that affects property gives rise to statutory tort liability, particularly under § 47B-6.  This would likely also hold true in regards to a judgment lien,  since those arise by operation of law and are not recorded either. From a consumer or bankruptcy attorney’s perspective, this opinion’s implications may be most pronounced when defending against lis pendens abuse. The appellate court signals that litigants cannot short-circuit traditional common law protections by invoking statutory slander of title theories unless the technical filing requirements—specifically recording with the register of deeds—are satisfied. This preserves important safeguards against chilling the use of lis pendens to protect real estate interests during bona fide disputes, a point equally relevant in adversary proceedings involving real property in Chapter 13 and Chapter 11 bankruptcies. That said,  a lien recorded following the filing of a bankruptcy case or an improperly conducted foreclosure,  could potentially also give rise to a cause of action for a valid common law slander of title claim, but would need to show the following elements: Falsity (the lien is invalid due to stay), Malice (intent or reckless disregard), Publication (recording the lien), Special damages (lost sale, fees, etc.) With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document palmetto_rtc_v._fielden.pdf (154.67 KB) Category NC Court of Appeals

After doing a bankruptcy for her mom, we helped Tammy sue Navy Federal. Back in 2011, Navy Federal emptied out the savings account where 14-year-old Tammy (not her real name) saved the money she made babysitting. Tammy’s mom, Jessica, needed to file for bankruptcy because she had been out of work for nine months.  She was now two months behind on her second mortgage.  (The second mortgage was from Navy Federal.)  She just got a new job paying half of what she had been making, and she was glad to get that.  But she knew she would not be able to pay all her debts and still feed her children. When she came to see me about filing for bankruptcy, Jessica mentioned in passing that Navy Fed had helped themselves to her daughter’s savings account.  How could they do it? I was shocked.  But I figured out how they do it. Most banks set up children’s accounts under the Uniform Transfers to Minor’s Act, where the parent is the custodian of the account, but the child is the owner. Navy Fed apparently doesn’t do it that way.  Instead, they set up a joint account, with the parent and the child. This gives them right, as they see it, to take Tammy’s money to make mom’s payment. I think that stinks.  The child, by definition, is a child, and hasn’t agreed to co-sign for mom.  So I don’t think the credit union can pretend the little girl did. So we sued; and Navy Federal agreed with us. They gave Tammy her money back before the court date. When you file for bankruptcy and owe money to Navy Fed, they will empty out your accounts So take your money out of Navy Federal.  And that includes your minor children’s money, too. The post After Bankruptcy, suing Navy Federal appeared first on Robert Weed Virginia Bankruptcy Attorney.

E.D.N.C.: Lewis v. EquityExperts PART III- Amendment of Complaint for Class Action Against HOA Agent Ed Boltz Wed, 06/04/2025 - 16:48 Summary: Judge Louise Flanagan ruled on two key post-certification motions in this putative class action concerning alleged abusive debt collection practices targeting North Carolina homeowners’ associations (HO As). Lewis originally filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the North Carolina Collection Agency Act (NCCAA), and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA), alleging that Equity Experts engaged in improper lien filings, foreclosure threats, and excessive collection fees against homeowners with delinquent HOA dues. After the court certified two classes — homeowners who received a “Notice of Lien” or a “Notice of Intent to Foreclose” and paid within 90 days — the litigation entered a contentious discovery phase, with both sides battling over the production of lien communications, fee details, and procedural manuals. Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to align with newly uncovered discovery, while the defendant moved for reconsideration of the class certification order, particularly objecting to the court’s sua sponte modification of the class definitions. Judge Flanagan granted the motion to amend, finding the plaintiff had shown diligence in seeking amendment after learning of relevant discovery materials post-deadline. The court emphasized the complexities of discovery across hundreds of homeowner accounts and noted the plaintiff’s success on prior motions to compel — signaling that her pursuit of additional claims wasn’t mere delay or gamesmanship. On the motion for reconsideration, the court partly agreed, clarifying the class definitions to impose a 90-day limit for payments made after receiving the lien or foreclosure notice (tightening the causal chain for standing purposes) but rejected the defendant’s bid to narrow the class further or impose constraints on the types of payments. Importantly, the court reaffirmed that the predominant issues — whether the standardized lien and foreclosure notices misrepresented the legal status or inflated fees — were suitable for class-wide adjudication. It found that numerical thresholds (over 40 class members) and common factual patterns supported class treatment despite the defendant’s insistence on individualized defenses. For previous decisions: E.D.N.C.: Lewis v. EquityExperts.org- Excessive Fees illegal under FDCPA E.D.N.C.: Lewis v. Equityexperts.org II- Class Commentary: This ruling carries several noteworthy implications for consumer protection practitioners, especially those focused on HOA-related debt collection. First, the court’s willingness to allow class amendments after discovery fights underscores the importance of aggressive, diligent discovery strategies in consumer class actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel here successfully leveraged depositions and motions to compel to pry loose critical evidence, persuading the court that amendment was justified even months after the scheduling order deadline. Second, the 90-day payment window imposed on the class definitions is a significant tightening — emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to establish a plausible causal connection between the allegedly deceptive notices and any monetary harm. This echoes Fourth Circuit Article III standing jurisprudence (e.g., Fernandez v. RentGrow), reinforcing that mere receipt of a bad letter isn’t enough: there must be concrete harm, like a payment traceable to the violation. Third, the court’s rejection of arguments about individual account differences (like COVID delays, unique waivers, or payment plans) reflects the judiciary’s comfort with certifying consumer classes where standardized practices or form documents drive the key liability questions. This holds lessons for both sides: defendants can’t evade class treatment just by pointing to account-level noise, and plaintiffs should focus certification efforts on the common practices and representations underlying their claims. Finally, the decision foreshadows a continued battle over damages measurement — particularly whether the allegedly inflated or unauthorized fees can be assessed through class-wide comparison to actual service costs. Practitioners would do well to watch how the court handles this at the dispositive motion stage or trial, as it could shape future fee-based class actions under North Carolina law The challenge to the collection fees charged — claiming they were inflated, unauthorized, or charged before services were actually rendered. In Chapter 13, trustees and debtor's counsel routinely review creditor fees under § 502(b)(1) (disallowing claims unenforceable under nonbankruptcy law). Practitioners can look to this case to bolster objections to HOA claims where the fee schedules or collection charges exceed what state law allows, especially under the NC Debt Collection Act or the NCCAA.   While Ms.  Lewis'  HOA,  Abbington Ridge Townehomes,  does not appear to have any Proofs of Claim filed in Chapter 13 cases,  knowing what other HO As Equity Experts has represented would be helpful to ensure that disbursements are not made on potentially illegal and inappropriate claims in active cases. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document lewis_v._equity_experts.pdf (188.39 KB) Category Eastern District

Why Does the Bankruptcy Court Need My Tax Forms? When we file your bankruptcy case, we have to turn in copies of your last year’s tax forms. Your bankruptcy trustee will look at them, and you might get asked a question or two at your bankruptcy trustee hearing.  Do the tax forms match your pay stubs? Your tax forms should match your pay stubs, usually. If they don’t, be ready to explain why.  Maybe you lost your job; maybe you just lost your overtime. You may get asked. Are you drilling for oil in Texas? Or raising marijuana in California? Besides your main job, if you have a business or big investment on the side, the trustee wants to know. What about your family?  Your eligibility might depend on whether you are married or single, on the number and age of your children. That’s why we need to send in the complete set of your tax papers. Not just your W-2s. The whole 1040 form. Are you raising marijuana in California? The Tax forms are hardly ever a problem. You probably aren’t drilling for oil in Texas; and if you are not working at the same job, you can explain. We just need to send the forms in, so the trustee can do his job. The post Why Does the Bankruptcy Court Look at My Tax Forms appeared first on Robert Weed Virginia Bankruptcy Attorney.