By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 15,2012
North Carolina Department of State Treasurer v. Bank of New York Mellon Whether a note with a term of two years and two days was a “two-year note” within the meaning of the parties’ contract is a factual issue not appropriately resolved on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 11,2012
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Willetts This court previously denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on its determination that, should defendants’ actions be determined to fall beyond the scope of the business judgment rule, they will be judged against an ordinary prudent person standard. The court stands by its ruling.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 23,2012
Front Street Construction, LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), as receiver for failed bank Colonial Bank, N.A., entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA) with Branch Banking and Trust Co. Some of plaintiffs’ claims against BB&T arose from acts or omissions by Colonial and were not addressed in the PAA. As to those claims, plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) before they can seek judicial remedies.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 22,2012
Front Street Construction, LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), as receiver for failed bank Colonial Bank, N.A., entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA) with Branch Banking and Trust Co. Some of plaintiffs’ claims against BB&T arose from acts or omissions by Colonial and were not addressed in the PAA. As to those claims, plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) before they can seek judicial remedies.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 26,2012
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Willetts Plaintiff alleges that the defendant-officers and directors of Cooperative Bank permitted a lax loan approval process, that state and federal regulators repeatedly warned defendants about risks associated with a high concentration in speculative loans, and that defendants continued to focus on real estate lending after 2007 when they should have known that the real estate market was slowing. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged gross negligence; furthermore, it is too early in this action to determine whether the business judgment rule will protect defendants from claims of ordinary negligence.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 12,2012
Epps v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA Federal regulations under the National Banking Act do not preempt a Maryland statute that governs repossession of personal property; Maryland has the right to regulate the notices lenders sent to borrowers before they repossess goods bought on a retail installment contract, and the 4th Circuit vacates dismissal of plaintiff car buyer’s putative class action.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 7,2011
Bumpers v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia When defendant charged plaintiffs for something it did not provide - a discount on the loan rate - defendant committed an unfair trade practice. We affirm summary judgment for plaintiffs on their unfair trade practices claim based on the loan discount fee. We reverse summary judgment for plaintiffs as to the issue of excessive closing fees. On remand, the trial court may consider the question of class certification.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 15,2011
Anderson v. Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, Inc. The plaintiff-borrowers claim the defendant-bank breached its duty to them by failing to disclose that the developer controlled the loan process, including the selection of an appraiser; however, the bank did not owe the borrowers a duty to disclose any details of the loan process not required to be disclosed under state or federal law or under the terms of the loan agreements. The bank's motion to dismiss is granted.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 18,2011
In re Hall. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0270, 16 pp.) (J. Douglas McCullough, J.) Appealed from Dare County Superior Court. (J. Carlton Cole, J.) N.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Where the debtor executed a hypothecation agreement authorizing a third party to secure her property for any present or future [...]
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 10,2011
Harris v. Wachovia Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-15-0254, 29 pp.) (John Jolly, J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: In an issue of first impression, the court rules that an officer of a corporation who has a personal relationship has no special duty to that shareholder; shareholders cannot [...]
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Russell v. N.C. Department of Environment & Natural Resources Since the evidence indicated that, when plaintiffs’ lot was supposedly tested for septic tank suitability, the soil sample was apparently taken from a different lot, expert testimony was unnecessary to show professional malpractice. We affirm the Industrial Commission’s conclusion that defendant was negligent; however, we reverse the damage award and remand for further proceedings on this issue.
State v. Bean Although the state elicited evidence that defendant exercised her right to remain silent, given the other evidence of defendant’s guilt – her own admissions to a nurse, “I killed my husband just because I finally had enough of him” and “I’m guilty” and the victim’s fear that defendant would kill him – the prosecutor’s comments and questions regarding whether defendant mentioned self-defense prior to trial had little bearing on the jury finding defendant guilty.
State v. Primus Even though the list of the elements of attempted felonious larceny set out in State v. Weaver, 123 N.C. App. 276, 473 S.E.2d 362 (1996), included “falling short of the completed offense,” and even though the state proved that defendant completed the offense of felonious larceny, this does not require the conclusion that proof of the completed offense disproves the attempt to commit. The completed commission of a crime must of necessity include an attempt to commit the crime.
