Source: https://collumperry.com/author/cpadmin/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 12:58:31
Document Index: 521535593

Matched Legal Cases: ['§362', '§362', '§362', '§157', '§362', '§157', '§362', '§362', '§ 362', '§362', '§362']

Danielle Brudi - 2/3 - Collum & Perry LawCollum & Perry Law
Financial Protection Law Center letter of congratulations.
As we posted before, Shane Perry scored a major victory for his client, Ms. Houck, who lost her house after Lifestore Bank sold it, despite her open and active bankruptcy. The magnitude of this case and the decision by the Fourth Circuit is far reaching and will help many people throughout North Carolina and the Southeast. In her letter, Maria McIntyre, of the Financial Protection Law Center, very kindly informed Collum & Perry that the decision in the case would be very helpful to her in a number of her cases.
Collum & Perry is very happy to work on behalf of our clients and all of those who suffer financial setbacks. The firm is full of hard working attorneys who are happy to take cases that are complex and confusing and work tirelessly to advocate for the rights of those who have been injured. Clients come to our office, feeling like they are in financial ruin, and, many times, their financial problems are not of their own creation. Regardless of the fault, however, Collum & Perry is happy to offer options and solutions to help clients overcome financial hurdles and move down the road of fiscal success.
Dear Shane, I wanted to express my admiration and appreciation for your excellent advocacy in your Houck case. It was such a complex and meaningful case. It would have been easy to decline such a messy set of facts and procedure when the case came to you. Your decision from the 4th Circuit is very helpful to our firm in several cases we have pending…[confidential] Congratulations on your superb work. Best, Maria McIntyre
Court of Appeals Update on Houck v. Lifestore Bank
We reported that those interested could listen to Shane Perry’s oral argument before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier. We also predicted that Shane Perry’s oral argument resulted in a win for his client, Diana Houck. The Order has been issued today, available for reading here (to be updated), and it was, indeed, a win.
Diane Houck received part of the family farm in 2000 from her father. She and her fiance borrowed money to put a mobile home on part of the land. The loan was refinanced in 2007 so Diana and her fiance could remodel the family farmhouse. Unfortunately, within a year, Diana lost her job and had trouble making payments. As many people do, Diana requested help from the bank in the form of a loan modification. Her bank, LifeStore, referred her to a debt collector, Grid Financial Services, that denied her request because she was unemployed. Diana then defaulted on her loan.
A client’s reliance on the court to help her save her home may finally reap rewards.
In 2011, Diana was served a notice of foreclosure and, in an effort to save her home, filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition (On September 12) without an attorney. The foreclosure was stopped. However, as often happens, the petition was not properly filed and the case was dismissed. After the dismissal, the bank, represented by the Hutchens Law Firm, through the Substitute Trustee, restarted the foreclosure.
On December 16, 2011, Diana again filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition without an attorney. Her husband called the law firm representing the bank and the bank to notify them of the petition. Two days later, the bankruptcy court ordered Diana to appear and show cause why her bankruptcy petition should not be dismissed. Two days later, Diana’s house was sold at a foreclosure sale. The next day, Diana’s second bankruptcy was dismissed.
With her home having been sold despite the bankruptcy being filed, Diana had no desire to keep the bankruptcy case open. Instead, she attempted other options for saving her home, all of which were unsuccessful. She and her husband (a lot had happened!) moved into a rental cabin they owned and hired Collum & Perry.
Shane Perry filed a claim in the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina for numerous claims, including violation of the automatic stay (under §362 of the bankruptcy code), and a number of state claims. The District Court dismissed the case, stating that claims under the bankruptcy code had to be heard in the bankruptcy court AND that the complaint, as filed, failed to provide sufficient information to make a claim (specifically stating that it seemed more likely that the bank had made a mistake, not a “willful violation.”)
After some judicial gymnastics, the case was heard before the Court of Appeals.
What were the issues and how were they decided?
Does the court of appeals have jurisdiction to hear the appeal?
The Court determined that they do have jurisdiction because the Order was final under the doctrine of cumulative finality
“Because subject matter jurisdiction goes to the power of the court to adjudicate a claim, an order dismissing a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction necessarily dismisses the claim as to all defendants”
“Because the court could have certified such an order as a final judgment under Rule 54(b) and because the court later entered final judgment against the remaining defendants with its February 20, 2014, order before we considered Houck’s (Diana’s) interlocutory appeal, we conclude that the doctrine of cumulative finality applies and that we therefore have jurisdiction to hear her appeal.”
Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter (specifically, a claim under §362, violation of the automatic stay)?
The district court dismissed Houck’s federal claim on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, but if the court had actually lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it could not have ruled on the Substitute Trustee’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion (which it did).
The court of appeals ruled that the district court’s reliance on two cases on the rules from before the 1984 revisions of the bankruptcy code was erroneous, as they merely indicated that the pre-1984 rules did not create a private right of action.
Both parties had agreed that §362 could be heard by the district court, so the Court of Appeals appointed counsel to submit an amicus curiae brief defending the district court’s position.
The court of appeals discussed the history of the automatic stay, including the motivation for creating sanctions for its violation.
“…[W]hile the district courts were given jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases, Coungress also delegated to the bankruptcy courts, “as judicial officers of the [district courts],” adjudicatory authority, subject to the district courts’ supervision as particularized in §157 and the limits imposed by the Constitution. In no circumstance, however, did the Act, in conferring such adjudicatory authority, give a bankruptcy court jurisdiction to the exclusion of a district court.“
“A claim under §362(k) for violation of the automatic stay is a cause of action arising under Title 11, and as such, a district court has jurisdiction over it. Of course, under §157(a), a district court may refer a §362(k) claim to the bankruptcy court. If the §362(k) claim did not ‘stem from the bankruptcy itself or would [not] necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process’…or would only ‘augment the bankruptcy estate and would otherwise exis[t] without regarding any bankruptcy proceeding.'”
“Thus, even if Houck’s § 362(k) claim was indeed subject to the Western District of North Carolina’s standing order referring ‘all bankruptcy matters’ to the bankruptcy court, the district court’s failure to follow the procedural rule did not deprive it of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Did the district court err in dismissing Houck’s claim under §362(k) because it was legally insufficient?
“While the court correctly accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true, it incorrectly undertook to determine whether a lawful alternative explanation appeared more likely.”
The court quoted Twombly in stating that the Plaintiff need only present her claim in a manner that shows that it is not just conceivable, but plausible.
The court determined that the complaint adequately alleged that the Substitute Trustee had notice of Houck’s second bankruptcy petition and that Houck sustained injury as a result of the violation.
“It is difficult to imagine that a court could demand more specificity with respect to the allegations of notice than the details that Houck provided in her complaint.”
“With respect to the Substitute Trustee’s argument that Houck failed to allege injury, the complaint is likewise adequately detailed.”
The court also determined that oral, actual notice, sufficient to create notice for determination of a violation of the automatic stay. No particular form of notice is required to be given.
Was Houck an “eligible debtor”?
Substitute Trustee argued that Houck’s filing of her second bankruptcy petition within 180 days of her first petition did not automatically trigger the stay under §362(a).
The court explained that certain filings do not trigger the automatic stay, but further noted that the automatic stay is only NOT triggered when there is an abuse of the Bankruptcy Code.
Houck’s first petition, filed pro se (without an attorney), failed to properly adhere to the rules regarding certain documents that must be filed. The dismissal was not with prejudice and was not because Houck’s failure was knowing and deliberate.
There is no evidence that Houck was not an eligible debtor, and the question is fact-bound, so Houck’s case cannot be dismissed as it appears she was an eligible debtor.
Because the state law claims were dismissed based on findings of law that the court of appeals reversed, the order dismissing the state law claims was also vacated.
Collum & Perry is very pleased with this decision, which makes clear that claims originating from creditors violating the automatic stay can be heard in district court. Collum & Perry is also very glad to be able to continue the fight to compensate Ms. Houck for the bank’s actions.
Personal Injury Outrage!
Attorneys who represent people who have been the victims of medical malpractice are shocked by an opinion entered on June 2, 2015, by the NC Court of Appeals. The case is over medical negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Despite the severe injuries, the Court decided to dismiss the case on a procedural issue, specifically Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which states:
Medical malpractice. – Any complaint alleging medical malpractice by a health care provider pursuant to G.S. 90-21.11(2)a. in failing to comply with the applicable standard of care under G.S. 90-21.12 shall be dismissed unless:
(1) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care and all medical records pertaining to the alleged negligence that are available to the plaintiff after reasonable inquiry have been reviewed by a person who is reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness under Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care…
What many believe this means is that all medical malpractice lawsuits MUST be reviewed by an expert BEFORE they are filed and that the expert must review all medical treatment and medical records and, of course, that this must be explicitly stated in the Complaint.
Further, the Court ruled, relying on Bass v. Durham Cty. Hosp. Corp., 158 N.C. App 217, 580 S.E.2d 738 (2003), rev’d per curiam for reasons stated in the dissent, 358 N.C. 144, 592 S.E.2d 687 (2004), that a complaint that fails to state the necessary verbiage cannot be dismissed and refiled after the Statute of Limitations expires, to correct the defect.
This is another factor that can suffocate the ability of injured people to obtain compensation from doctors doing wrong. While Collum & Perry believes that doctors generally offer excellent care, when a person suffers due to a doctor’s negligence, our attorneys want to do whatever possible to ensure the person is fairly compensated. By creating a special class of people (Doctors) and making it even more expensive to file lawsuits, there may be a chilling effect, leading to fewer cases. This means fewer consequences for bad doctors and an increase in people being injured due to malpractice.
Big win for peace and quiet!
Robocalls aren’t even this pleasant!
Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, businesses (debt collectors and banks included) are generally barred from making robocalls to a cell phone without consent. If a business makes robocalls, the recipient can sue the business for up to $1,500.00/call. Yesterday, the FCC issued new rules that are big wins for consumers, although it was a hotly contested issue, split down party lines, involving even Twitter. These new rules make it even harder for telemarketers to annoy people, for debt collectors to harass people, and for any business to interrupt dinner! The rules, which resulted from the fact that unwanted calls are the #1 complaint received by the FCC, provide for the following:
Phone companies can provide technology that blocks robocalls.
Consumers can withdraw consent to receive consent to receive robocalls/robotexts at any time in any reasonable way (meaning that there is no need to revoke consent in writing and that consent can be revoked even if already expressly given).
Companies are now required to stop calling reassigned telephone numbers after a single call. This means that when someone gets a new number that gets dozens of robocalls, one request is all it should take to get the calls to stop.
The new rules clarify the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system to make clear that it is any machine with a future capacity to dial randomly, sequentially, and/or from a list pre-loaded by a human dialer. Even if a person has to have a part in the process, it is an autodialer if the person is not dialing the entire number.
Consent must come from the party called, not the intended recipient.
Autodialed and/or prerecorded calls and text messages to mobile phones still require prior consent.
Collum & Perry is a lawfirm dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers. If you believe that any company has violated any of the rules above, we will be happy to help. There is no reason you should be harassed, bothered or irritated by businesses who know the laws. Collum & Perry will be happy to discuss your options for ending harassing phone calls.
What is a reaffirmation agreement and do I need one?
If you have secured debt on personal property you want to keep and you’re filing a Chapter 7, you may need to sign a reaffirmation agreement.
Reaffirming a debt is to agree that you will owe the debt after the bankruptcy case is over. So not only can the creditor repossess its collateral, it can also collect directly from you. Essentially, it’s as though you “did not include” that particular debt in the bankruptcy.
For example, if you owed $18,000.00 on your car before you filed, your payments were $345.00/month and your interest rate was 7.8%, signing a reaffirmation agreement typically agrees, again, to pay at those same terms. Occasionally, it is possible to get a lower interest rate when a debt is reaffirmed, but that is rare.
A vehicle must be reaffirmed to ensure you can keep the vehicle.
You must sign a reaffirmation agreement if you wish to hold on to your car after a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Before signing, make sure that you are willing and able to continue making the payment. You should only reaffirm a debt when you must AND you are relatively certain you’ll be able to make the payments. Reaffirmed debts are usually reported on your credit report, and a good payment history on a reaffirmed debt can be essential to rebuilding credit. Collum & Perry will assist you in making sure the reaffirmation is completed correctly, signed, and submitted to the Court. An attorney can only sign the reaffirmation agreement if it appears likely that you can afford to make your payments.
Collum & Perry DOES NOT recommend that you reaffirm a debt on a home. Additionally, bankruptcy judges in the Western District of North Carolina discourage reaffirmation agreements because they make a person personally responsible for a debt that can often become a huge burden. Some attorneys refuse believe that reaffirming a mortgage is malpractice. If a bank has insisted that you should have signed a reaffirmation agreement, simply tell them that mortgages are generally NOT reaffirmed where you filed bankruptcy. If you need the mortgage payments to be reported on your credit report, find out how to do so here.