In re Foreclosure of Beauchemin The appellant-owners of the real property in Jackson County stipulated that they received notice of the Jackson County foreclosure. In this Jackson County action appellant Richard Beauchemin may not collaterally attack the foreclosure notice sent to him involving property his business owned (before foreclosure) in Haywood County.
Bank of North Carolina v. Equity Partners, Inc. Since the notice of foreclosure that the plaintiff-bank sent to 1340 S. Ocean Blvd. in Pompano Beach, Florida was returned, marked “RETURN TO SENDER, UNCLAIMED, UNABLE TO FORWARD,” it was not unreasonable for the bank to send the notice of hearing to other addresses and not attempt service at the 1340 S. Ocean Blvd. address again.
John Conner Construction, Inc. v. Grandfather Holding Co. Where the plaintiff-contractors started working on the land at issue for defendant Grandfather Holding Co. before Grandfather Holding even entered into formal negotiations to buy the land, the contractors had no statutory right to file a claim of lien on the property.
Wilson v. Suntrust Bank Even though plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim may arise out of the same events that were the subject of a foreclosure action in state court, a similar action in state court does not deprive this court of jurisdiction.
Wilson v. Suntrust Bank Even though plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim may arise out of the same events that were the subject of a foreclosure action in state court, a similar action in state court does not deprive this court of jurisdiction.
Synovus Bank v. Karp In their counterclaims, the defendant-borrowers contend that the plaintiff-bank lent money to unqualified individuals to buy property, knowing the property was overvalued and, in some cases, knowing that the individuals would not be able to make payments on these loans once their interest-only periods ended, in order to stimulate short-term revenue. While the bank’s alleged conduct may not appear to have been the most prudent course of action in terms of the bank’s long-term business interests, this does not mean that such conduct is not plausible as a matter of law.
RL Regi North Carolina, LLC v. Estate of Moser Although the decedent’s will granted its co-executors broad powers, the will’s co-executors lacked the authority to have the estate guarantee a loan that was borrowed for the purpose of developing raw land owned by the decedent’s company.
In re Foreclosure of the Deed of Trust of Johnson In this foreclosure action, respondent had seven weeks after he filed a pro se appeal, and five weeks after he received notice of the hearing of his appeal, to hire a lawyer. At the hearing, respondent claimed to have hired an attorney who was prevented from appearing by a death in the family, but respondent admitted that he had not paid the attorney to represent him. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied respondent’s motion to continue.
Colony Insurance Co. v. Peterson A separate agreement existed between the plaintiff-insurer and the defendant-bank as a mortgagee. Accordingly, even if the insurer may rescind its policy with the property owner (and thus the bank as a loss payee) pursuant to G.S. § 58-3-10 due to material misrepresentations in the insurance application, the bank’s rights as a mortgagee would survive.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Reed Judy Reed, her husband, and her mother bought property as joint tenants with right of survivorship; however, when the mother took out a mortgage on the property, the joint tenancy was severed, and a tenancy in common was created, without the right of survivorship.
