E.D.N.C.: Macedon v. North Carolina- Dismissal of Sovereign Citizen Action Challenging Foreclosure Ed Boltz Mon, 04/21/2025 - 06:10 Summary: In this foreclosure-related action, the district court  dismissed with prejudice a pro se complaint challenging a completed non-judicial foreclosure under a mélange of constitutional, statutory, and sovereignty-based theories.       The court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to bar the borrower’s attempt to unwind a state-court authorized foreclosure order, underscoring that federal courts nearly always  lack jurisdiction to review or reverse state court foreclosure rulings.     The court also found that assistant clerks acting in their judicial capacities—here, approving a foreclosure—are immune from suit as individuals, being  shielded by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.   The  Plaintiff’s complaint was also dismissed for numerous defects: lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and incomprehensible legal theories.  Commentary: This is not the end of this case,  as it has been (as is  de rigueur for sovereign citizen lawsuits)  appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  At least the complaint wasn't signed with a bloody thumbprint. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document macedon_v._north_carolina.pdf (285.04 KB) Category Eastern District

4th Cir.: Fluharty v. Philadelphia Indemnity- No Standingor Settlement Control for Trustee in D&O Policy Dispute Ed Boltz Fri, 04/18/2025 - 19:32 Summary: In two intertwined bankruptcy cases—one corporate (Geostellar, Inc.) and one personal (David and Monica Levine)—the respective trustees sought a declaratory judgment that they, not David Levine, controlled the right to settle claims under a $3 million wasting D&O policy issued by Philadelphia Indemnity. Their aim: to access the policy proceeds as the only meaningful source of recovery for claims that would otherwise be discharged. But both the bankruptcy court and the district court found the trustees lacked standing The Court of Appeals affirmed,  holding that  the Geostellar Trustee lacked standing because the policy did not provide first-party coverage to the debtor-corporation—only to individual directors and officers. And under West Virginia law, third-party plaintiffs cannot sue an insurer unless coverage is denied or a judgment is unpaid—neither of which applied.   The Levine Trustee lacked standing because any personal liability of Levine had already been discharged. As such, the estate had no economic interest in the outcome of the adversary action or in the right to settle the claim. Section 541(a)(1) did not help either trustee, because the proceeds of the D&O policy were not estate property. Courts have consistently held that when a policy offers only direct coverage to directors and officers (rather than indemnity to the debtor entity), the proceeds belong to the insured individual—not the estate. Implications for Consumer Bankruptcy and Debtor Protections While primarily a corporate insurance case, In re Levine carries several important implications for individual consumer debtors and Chapter 7 and 13 trustees: Commentary: North Carolina is even more restrictive on the rights of third-party plaintiffs  than West Virginia appears to be, which have led to involuntary bankruptcies being filed in order that a Trustee can assert this sort of claim against automobile insurers for the eventual benefit of third-party plaintiffs as creditors.  See In re Carter. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document fluharty_v._philadelphia_indemnity.pdf (145.17 KB) Category 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Smith- Tax Lien attachment to Tenancy by the Entirety Property in Chapter 13 Ed Boltz Fri, 04/18/2025 - 19:30 Summary: Following the 4th Circuit decision in In re Morgan a Chapter 7 trustee can reach entireties property to pay IRS debt even without a pre-existing tax lien.  The Trustee's  calculation:  After subtracting the statutory exemption of $70,000 (comprising the $35,000 homestead exemption that would be available to both Mr. Smith and his non-filing spouse under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-1601(a)(1)), the Trustee contends that there is $90,456.90 in equity above exemptions. To reach the value that would be paid to the IRS in a hypothetical liquidation under chapter 7, the Trustee subtracts from that figure $6,838 in attorney's fees, a priority claim of $18,152.50, and the chapter 7 trustee's fee of $15,542. The Trustee maintains that the remainder, $49,924.40, would be paid to the IRS as the only general unsecured creditor that could reach the tenancy by the entireties property.  The Debtor's calculation: Mr. Smith's calculation of non-exempt equity also starts with a property value of $336,000 and factors in liquidation costs and total liens to reach the property's net value, but diverges from the Trustee's calculation by dividing the net value in half, providing Mr. Smith's non-filing spouse with one-half of the value, and leaving Mr. Smith with an interest of $80,557.78. From there, he subtracts his homestead exemption of $35,000, the priority claim of $18,152.50, attorney's fees of $6,838, and the hypothetical chapter 7 trustee's fee of $15,542, leaving $4,645.54 in non-exempt equity to be paid to the general unsecured claim of the IRS. Judge McAfee recognized the Morgan holding, but found that in Chapter 13, a debtor can still propose a plan that only commits the value of their 50% interest in the entireties property, noting that  pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 41-58, -59, -63,  spouses have  clearly recognized equal ownership and distribution rights in entireties property, including upon sale or conversion to personal property. Accordingly, the court found that under both state and federal law, the IRS lien should be treated as attaching only to the debtor’s one-half share. Commentary: Though rooted in statutory interpretation, the court’s decision was bolstered by equitable considerations: The debt was incurred before the marriage, the property was originally owned by the now-wife, and it would be unjust to use her equity to pay the debtor’s prior tax liability. While the court emphasized it was ruling on law, this factual backdrop underscores the fairness of its outcome and the "equity of mercy is not strained"  either,  rather than merely a doctrinaire reliance on the Code. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document in_re_smith-_secured_tax_lient.pdf (277.65 KB) Category Eastern District

“Now I can’t even rent an apartment” Chuck, not his real name, talked to me last month about filing bankruptcy. He’d been trying to “resolve” his debts through one of the newer debt settlement outfits, Five Lakes.   After 18 months in a debt settlement program, Chuck can’t even rent an apartment. He had been paying Five Lakes for eighteen months and his credit score kept going down. Why was that? Why Debt Settlement/Debt Consolidation Wrecks Your Credit The big idea behind Five Lakes and others is that you stop paying your debts: “Making your creditors wait for payment encourages them” to give you a better deal: in theory. Of course every month you don’t pay, the creditors ding your credit with another delinquency.  And when you reach a settlement–if you do–with the first one or two creditors, the others still aren’t getting paid. They still keep reporting you as late and keep dragging your credit score down further. Each month you are late is reported as a delinquency in credit reporting vocabulary. And the delinquencies just pile up. Bankruptcy Stops Credit Report Delinquencies When you file bankruptcy, your creditors have to stop credit-reporting.  That means you do NOT get his with a new late report delinquency every month. Your credit takes one last hit and that’s it.  You can start the process of rebuilding your credit. That’s why studies show, most people experience an immediate improvement to their credit scores after filing bankruptcy. As soon as the bankruptcy is over–usually three and a half months in a Chapter 7–you can get new credit cards and start building good credit, while your former problems fade into the past.  In a debt settlement situation, those late payment keep chasing you. In a few years after bankruptcy, your credit can be good as new.       The post Why is Bankruptcy Better for Your Credit Score than “Debt Consolidation” appeared first on Robert Weed Bankruptcy Attorney.

“Now I can’t even rent an apartment” Chuck, not his real name, talked to me last month about filing bankruptcy. He’d been trying to “resolve” his debts through one of the newer debt settlement outfits, Five Lakes.   After 18 months in a debt settlement program, Chuck can’t even rent an apartment. He had been paying Five Lakes for eighteen months and his credit score kept going down. Why was that? Why Debt Settlement/Debt Consolidation Wrecks Your Credit The big idea behind Five Lakes and others is that you stop paying your debts: “Making your creditors wait for payment encourages them” to give you a better deal: in theory. Of course every month you don’t pay, the creditors ding your credit with another delinquency.  And when you reach a settlement–if you do–with the first one or two creditors, the others still aren’t getting paid. They still keep reporting you as late and keep dragging your credit score down further. Each month you are late is reported as a delinquency in credit reporting vocabulary. And the delinquencies just pile up. Bankruptcy Stops Credit Report Delinquencies When you file bankruptcy, your creditors have to stop credit-reporting.  That means you do NOT get his with a new late report delinquency every month. Your credit takes one last hit and that’s it.  You can start the process of rebuilding your credit. That’s why studies show, most people experience an immediate improvement to their credit scores after filing bankruptcy. As soon as the bankruptcy is over–usually three and a half months in a Chapter 7–you can get new credit cards and start building good credit, while your former problems fade into the past.  In a debt settlement situation, those late payment keep chasing you. In a few years after bankruptcy, your credit can be good as new.       The post Why is Bankruptcy Better for Your Credit Score than “Debt Consolidation” appeared first on Robert Weed Bankruptcy Attorney.

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: Sliwinski v. Sliwinski- Chapter 13 Debtor cannot Use § 363(h) to force the sale of jointly owned property Ed Boltz Thu, 04/17/2025 - 16:27 Summary: Judge McAfee held that a Chapter 13 debtor lacks standing to invoke 11 U.S.C. § 363(h) to force the sale of property jointly owned with a non-debtor spouse, because §1303 does not grant the debtor that specific trustee power. That authority rests solely with the Chapter 13 trustee, and the debtor cannot bootstrap it via § 363(b) or similar cross-referenced sections.   The court emphasized that Congress intentionally excluded § 363(h) from the list of trustee powers extended to debtors under § 1303. Attempts to read § 363(h) as “incorporated” through § 363(b) were rejected as legally unsound. This reiterates that expressio unius est exclusio alterius is not just a maxim—it’s binding when rights to sell co-owned homes are at stake. Commentary: While Chapter 13 debtors enjoy expanded powers to use, sell, or lease estate property under § 1303, this decision draws a bright line at § 363(h). Debtors seeking to fund plans through the sale of co-owned assets must either: obtain consent from the co-owner, proceed under state law partition proceedings, or involve the trustee to pursue a § 363(h) sale. The last could be accomplished, despite a hesitant trustee,  by the debtor first commencing an Adversary Proceeding under Rule 7001(3)  for a sale under § 363(h) and then filing a motion  under Rule 19(a)(2) to join the Trustee as a necessary and even involuntary plaintiff.  The factors for the court to consider include: (1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by: (A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the relief; or (C) other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document sliwinski_v._sliwinski.pdf (167.18 KB) Category Eastern District

How Breadcrumbing Puts You At A Disadvantage In Divorce Have you ever felt like you were fed up with a relationship, just for that person to give you a shred of attention that’s enough to reel you back in? If so, you’ve probably experienced a phenomenon known as “breadcrumbing.” While it might not be as dangerous as other forms of abuse and psychological manipulation, it can still make the recipient feel a variety of negative emotions. If someone is susceptible to breadcrumbing, they may be put at a steep disadvantage should they ever get divorced from their spouse or have a custody dispute with their child’s other parent.  Read on to learn more about breadcrumbing to determine if this tactic is being used against you. To review it with an experienced lawyer in the context of Arizona family law, contact our firm for your free consultation. Our dedicated divorce and custody attorneys know just how sensitive these matters can be. For family law lawyers, it can be just as important to be an understanding and compassionate listener as it is to bring a pit-bull mentality to the courtroom. To schedule your free consultation with a member of My AZ Lawyers, call 480-470-1504.  What Is Breadcrumbing? Breadcrumbing is “a behavior in which one person sends intermittent and often vague messages to keep another person interested or engaged, without any intention of fully committing or entering into a relationship.” While the term is used most often when discussing dating, it can apply to a variety of romantic and non-romantic relationships. Think of the popular boy in school who may occasionally be nice to the nerd so he’ll let him copy his homework, or the boss who always hints at a promotion that never comes to their employee, if they only work a little harder. A romantic relationship can also start off healthy, and eventually devolve to where one or both partners utilize breadcrumbing. After a few kids, a wife may begin to only show affection when she wants her husband to complete a task, or a husband may only plan a date or buy flowers when he can tell he’s in trouble. Breadcrumbing affects the recipient negatively in several ways. It can cause feelings of inadequacy, jealousy, anger, sadness, etc. It might be triggering for someone who has experienced a traumatic childhood or abusive relationship. Breadcrumbing can also prevent the recipient from moving on and finding someone who is actually interested in them.  Signs You Are Being Breadcrumbed If you suspect that you or someone you love is being breadcrumbed in a relationship, there are some tell-tale signs that this method of manipulation is being utilized. Some of the warning flags for breadcrumbing include: Communication will only ever be on the other person’s terms. Deep down, you probably already know that this person can’t be relied on in an emergency, or even just to comfort you on a bad day. They might not reply when you’re the first to reach out, or even respond after they have started a conversation. Most of their communication may be at night or via text, or primarily focus on physical intimacy.  This person might outwardly tell you they are not ready to be in a committed relationship with you. This could be because of work, family obligations, or simple emotional unavailability. But you will probably still find them on the dating apps, “looking for a long-term relationship.”  If you do ever get this person to agree to plans, they may be late or flake entirely. Any plans for a rain-check may be vague or non-committal. You won’t catch this person agreeing to be your wedding date in six months or possibly even your dinner date next week.  They might only use the lowest-effort forms of communication possible. While double-tapping a post to like it or sending a one-word text on an app meant for sending hidden messages only takes a second to complete, it can make the breadcrumbing target feel like they are making progress in their relationship.  This person might avoid any deeper-level discussions of feelings. Conversations are often kept at the surface level, and a breadcrumber may also put extra effort into keeping the conversation focused on the other person.  How Breadcrumbing Can Play Out In Divorce Not everyone who gets divorced wants to. Arizona is a no-fault divorce state, and only one spouse needs to decide they want a divorce for it to eventually be granted, unless the spouses have entered a covenant marriage. Arizona is a community property state, so all assets and debts acquired during the marriage will be split evenly between them in divorce, unless they sign a consent decree agreeing to some other dissolution of their marital estate. Getting a spouse to agree to property division outside of community property laws could be where breadcrumbing comes into play.  A spouse who is used to manipulating their partner to get their way can be trusted to do the same during divorce. During the marriage, they may have utilized breadcrumbing to make sure the family always went to the vacation destination of their choosing, lived in a home suiting their needs, etc. In a marriage that is already official, this may look more like withholding affection and attention in order to give their spouse a sense of desperation to give them their way. In a marriage that is ending, it may arise as promises to cooperate on certain issues if the other spouse makes huge sacrifices in other areas. For example, one spouse might hint at getting back together with their spouse if they agree to come to their divorce attorney’s office for a negotiation, or promise to be fair during the child custody portion of the divorce if their spouse agrees to surrender the family home.  Anyone who is aware that they are susceptible to manipulation needs to be on guard throughout the entire divorce process. A manipulative spouse likely won’t have a hard time finding an equally manipulative attorney in Arizona or any other state in the country. Hiring your own attorney who isn’t afraid to back down from a challenge and try innovative strategies to deal with difficult opposition will make the divorce process less challenging. If you’re looking for an Arizona divorce lawyer who knows how to deal with toxic and manipulative exes, call 480-470-1504 to schedule your free consultation with My AZ Lawyers today.  Don’t Want A Breadcrumbing Dynamic To Extend Into Divorce? Contact My AZ Lawyers For Your Free Consultation.  There is nothing wrong with being someone who wants to make their partner happy and tries their best to see the positive in a situation. But a manipulative spouse may turn that against you and use breadcrumbing as a strategy to achieve an unfair divorce resolution. At the offices of My AZ Lawyers, we have seen countless spouses assume they can steamroll their exes in divorce because of how things went during the marriage. In these situations, it’s best to retain an attorney who is confident in their knowledge of the Arizona law office and their negotiation skills, even with ruthless opposing counsel. Let our legal team fight to make sure your divorce is fair and as peaceful for your family as possible. Get started today with your free consultation by phone- call 480-470-1504. MY AZ LAWYERS Email: info@myazlawyers.com 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 How Breadcrumbing Puts You At A Disadvantage In Divorce appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

How Breadcrumbing Puts You At A Disadvantage In Divorce Have you ever felt like you were fed up with a relationship, just for that person to give you a shred of attention that’s enough to reel you back in? If so, you’ve probably experienced a phenomenon known as “breadcrumbing.” While it might not be as dangerous as other forms of abuse and psychological manipulation, it can still make the recipient feel a variety of negative emotions. If someone is susceptible to breadcrumbing, they may be put at a steep disadvantage should they ever get divorced from their spouse or have a custody dispute with their child’s other parent.  Read on to learn more about breadcrumbing to determine if this tactic is being used against you. To review it with an experienced lawyer in the context of Arizona family law, contact our firm for your free consultation. Our dedicated divorce and custody attorneys know just how sensitive these matters can be. For family law lawyers, it can be just as important to be an understanding and compassionate listener as it is to bring a pit-bull mentality to the courtroom. To schedule your free consultation with a member of My AZ Lawyers, call 480-470-1504.  What Is Breadcrumbing? Breadcrumbing is “a behavior in which one person sends intermittent and often vague messages to keep another person interested or engaged, without any intention of fully committing or entering into a relationship.” While the term is used most often when discussing dating, it can apply to a variety of romantic and non-romantic relationships. Think of the popular boy in school who may occasionally be nice to the nerd so he’ll let him copy his homework, or the boss who always hints at a promotion that never comes to their employee, if they only work a little harder. A romantic relationship can also start off healthy, and eventually devolve to where one or both partners utilize breadcrumbing. After a few kids, a wife may begin to only show affection when she wants her husband to complete a task, or a husband may only plan a date or buy flowers when he can tell he’s in trouble. Breadcrumbing affects the recipient negatively in several ways. It can cause feelings of inadequacy, jealousy, anger, sadness, etc. It might be triggering for someone who has experienced a traumatic childhood or abusive relationship. Breadcrumbing can also prevent the recipient from moving on and finding someone who is actually interested in them.  Signs You Are Being Breadcrumbed If you suspect that you or someone you love is being breadcrumbed in a relationship, there are some tell-tale signs that this method of manipulation is being utilized. Some of the warning flags for breadcrumbing include: Communication will only ever be on the other person’s terms. Deep down, you probably already know that this person can’t be relied on in an emergency, or even just to comfort you on a bad day. They might not reply when you’re the first to reach out, or even respond after they have started a conversation. Most of their communication may be at night or via text, or primarily focus on physical intimacy.  This person might outwardly tell you they are not ready to be in a committed relationship with you. This could be because of work, family obligations, or simple emotional unavailability. But you will probably still find them on the dating apps, “looking for a long-term relationship.”  If you do ever get this person to agree to plans, they may be late or flake entirely. Any plans for a rain-check may be vague or non-committal. You won’t catch this person agreeing to be your wedding date in six months or possibly even your dinner date next week.  They might only use the lowest-effort forms of communication possible. While double-tapping a post to like it or sending a one-word text on an app meant for sending hidden messages only takes a second to complete, it can make the breadcrumbing target feel like they are making progress in their relationship.  This person might avoid any deeper-level discussions of feelings. Conversations are often kept at the surface level, and a breadcrumber may also put extra effort into keeping the conversation focused on the other person.  How Breadcrumbing Can Play Out In Divorce Not everyone who gets divorced wants to. Arizona is a no-fault divorce state, and only one spouse needs to decide they want a divorce for it to eventually be granted, unless the spouses have entered a covenant marriage. Arizona is a community property state, so all assets and debts acquired during the marriage will be split evenly between them in divorce, unless they sign a consent decree agreeing to some other dissolution of their marital estate. Getting a spouse to agree to property division outside of community property laws could be where breadcrumbing comes into play.  A spouse who is used to manipulating their partner to get their way can be trusted to do the same during divorce. During the marriage, they may have utilized breadcrumbing to make sure the family always went to the vacation destination of their choosing, lived in a home suiting their needs, etc. In a marriage that is already official, this may look more like withholding affection and attention in order to give their spouse a sense of desperation to give them their way. In a marriage that is ending, it may arise as promises to cooperate on certain issues if the other spouse makes huge sacrifices in other areas. For example, one spouse might hint at getting back together with their spouse if they agree to come to their divorce attorney’s office for a negotiation, or promise to be fair during the child custody portion of the divorce if their spouse agrees to surrender the family home.  Anyone who is aware that they are susceptible to manipulation needs to be on guard throughout the entire divorce process. A manipulative spouse likely won’t have a hard time finding an equally manipulative attorney in Arizona or any other state in the country. Hiring your own attorney who isn’t afraid to back down from a challenge and try innovative strategies to deal with difficult opposition will make the divorce process less challenging. If you’re looking for an Arizona divorce lawyer who knows how to deal with toxic and manipulative exes, call 480-470-1504 to schedule your free consultation with My AZ Lawyers today.  Don’t Want A Breadcrumbing Dynamic To Extend Into Divorce? Contact My AZ Lawyers For Your Free Consultation.  There is nothing wrong with being someone who wants to make their partner happy and tries their best to see the positive in a situation. But a manipulative spouse may turn that against you and use breadcrumbing as a strategy to achieve an unfair divorce resolution. At the offices of My AZ Lawyers, we have seen countless spouses assume they can steamroll their exes in divorce because of how things went during the marriage. In these situations, it’s best to retain an attorney who is confident in their knowledge of the Arizona law office and their negotiation skills, even with ruthless opposing counsel. Let our legal team fight to make sure your divorce is fair and as peaceful for your family as possible. Get started today with your free consultation by phone- call 480-470-1504. MY AZ LAWYERS Email: info@myazlawyers.com 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 How Breadcrumbing Puts You At A Disadvantage In Divorce appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

N.C. Business Ct.: Pro-Tops v. Maksimenko_- Service of Process Short Cut is Improper Ed Boltz Wed, 04/16/2025 - 16:31 Summary: Pro-Tops sought to effectuate service on Maksimenko through a private process server on six different occasions without success. The personal process server contacted Maksimenko, who denied avoiding service. On December 19, 2024, the private process server met with Maksimenko at an agreed location,  providing copies of the complaint and summons. Maksimenko moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) for improper service of process. The Business Court granted Maksimenko’s motion to dismiss, noting that Plaintiff’s affidavit of service did not indicate service by the sheriff had first been attempted or that the sheriff was otherwise unable to serve the summons or complaint. Citing precedent, the Court noted that “use of a private process server is limited by statute to scenarios where the sheriff is unable to fulfill the duties of a process server.” Finding that service was not properly effectuated on Maksimenko, Plaintiff’s case was dismissed. In a decision that reinforces the rigid contours of North Carolina’s civil procedure—and the potential pitfalls for creditors moving too quickly—the Business Court dismissed a suit without prejudice against an individual defendant due to improper service under Rule 12(b)(5), despite undisputed actual notice of the action. While Pro-Tops, Inc. v. Maksimenko arises from a commercial trade secrets dispute rather than a consumer or bankruptcy case, the ruling has important implications for both areas—particularly as consumers continue to face lawsuits from creditors, landlords, and collectors increasingly represented by large firms seeking swift judgment in North Carolina courts. Commentary: While not a consumer case per se, Pro-Tops v. Maksimenko serves as a reminder that North Carolina courts—particularly its Business Court—demand strict adherence to service of process rules. For consumer advocates and bankruptcy attorneys, the case offers another procedural arrow in the quiver to defend against improperly served judgments, which, if timely challenged, may be dismissed or voided altogether. With proper attribution,  please share this post.    To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document pro-tops_v._maksimenko.pdf (177.2 KB) Category NC Business Court

N.C. Ct. of Appeals: Midland Credit Management v. Mitchell- Procedural Errors Lead to Dismissal of Pro Se Consumer Case Ed Boltz Tue, 04/15/2025 - 22:26 Summary: The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of Derrick Mitchell in a case brought against him by Midland Credit Management, Inc. for an unpaid credit card debt. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of Midland, ordering Mitchell to pay $13,790.19 plus interest. Mitchell, representing himself, appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in multiple ways, including failing to rule on his motion to dismiss, granting summary judgment, and striking his counterclaims. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to substantial violations of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court found that Mitchell’s appeal was deficient in several ways, including failing to provide legal arguments, standards of review, or supporting legal authority for his claims. The court emphasized that appellate rules apply to all litigants, including those representing themselves, and that compliance is essential to maintaining the adversarial process. Because Mitchell’s violations impaired the court’s ability to conduct a meaningful review, the appeal was dismissed. Commentary: Midland v. Mitchell serves less as doctrinal development than a practical demonstration of the steep procedural terrain faced by consumer debtors. The decision, though unpublished, reinforces that the courthouse doors remain open only to those able to navigate increasingly complex procedural rules—rules that, for consumer debtors facing summary judgment on charged-off accounts, may prove as formidable as the debt itself.   Even with fee shifting provisions in consumer rights statutes,  it seems like consumers struggle to not only find lawyers  who will bring these sorts of claims and counterclaims,  but even to get a  consultation  with an attorney about what rights and defenses they might have. This case also reflects a broader trend: North Carolina’s courts continue to entertain lawsuits from debt buyers—often with scant original documentation—and grant summary judgments in the absence of a well-presented defense. While consumers can, in theory, raise powerful statutory and constitutional defenses, this decision exemplifies how such claims are easily extinguished if not procedurally packaged with precision.   With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document midland_credit_management_v_mitchell.pdf (116.34 KB) Category NC Court of Appeals