<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; mortgages</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/tag/mortgages/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:51:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Civil Practice &#8211; Collateral Attack – Real Property – Mortgages – Foreclosure – Notice&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/12/27/civil-practice-collateral-attack-real-property-mortgages-foreclosure-notice/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/12/27/civil-practice-collateral-attack-real-property-mortgages-foreclosure-notice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collateral Attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=69108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>In re Foreclosure of Beauchemin </em>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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/12/27/civil-practice-collateral-attack-real-property-mortgages-foreclosure-notice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil Practice – Service of Process – Real Property – Mortgages – Foreclosure – Deficiency Action&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/12/civil-practice-service-of-process-real-property-mortgages-foreclosure-deficiency-action/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/12/civil-practice-service-of-process-real-property-mortgages-foreclosure-deficiency-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=67826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Bank of North Carolina v. Equity Partners, Inc.</em> 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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/12/civil-practice-service-of-process-real-property-mortgages-foreclosure-deficiency-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211;  Contract – Materialman’s Lien – Subsequent Purchaser – Mortgages – Unjust Enrichment&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/10/02/real-property-contract-materialmans-lien-subsequent-purchaser-mortgages-unjust-enrichment/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/10/02/real-property-contract-materialmans-lien-subsequent-purchaser-mortgages-unjust-enrichment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Materialman's Lien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subsequent Purchaser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unjust Enrichment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=66771</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>John Conner Construction, Inc. v. Grandfather Holding Co.</em> 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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/10/02/real-property-contract-materialmans-lien-subsequent-purchaser-mortgages-unjust-enrichment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mortgages &#8211; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – Civil Practice – Federal Jurisdiction – State Foreclosure Action&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/09/21/mortgages-fair-debt-collection-practices-act-civil-practice-federal-jurisdiction-state-foreclosure-action-2/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/09/21/mortgages-fair-debt-collection-practices-act-civil-practice-federal-jurisdiction-state-foreclosure-action-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Western]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Debt Collection Practices Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Foreclosure Action]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=66474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Wilson v. Suntrust Bank</em> 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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/09/21/mortgages-fair-debt-collection-practices-act-civil-practice-federal-jurisdiction-state-foreclosure-action-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mortgages &#8211;  Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – Civil Practice – Federal Jurisdiction – State Foreclosure Action&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/09/17/mortgages-fair-debt-collection-practices-act-civil-practice-federal-jurisdiction-state-foreclosure-action/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/09/17/mortgages-fair-debt-collection-practices-act-civil-practice-federal-jurisdiction-state-foreclosure-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Western]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Debt Collection Practices Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Foreclosure Action]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=66136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Wilson v. Suntrust Bank</em> 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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/09/17/mortgages-fair-debt-collection-practices-act-civil-practice-federal-jurisdiction-state-foreclosure-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; Fraud &amp; Unfair Trade Practices – Real Property – Mortgages – Banks &amp; Banking – ILSA&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/31/tortnegligence-fraud-unfair-trade-practices-real-property-mortgages-banks-banking-ilsa/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/31/tortnegligence-fraud-unfair-trade-practices-real-property-mortgages-banks-banking-ilsa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:29:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Western]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraud & Unfair Trade Practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ILSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort/Negligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=65606</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Synovus Bank v. Karp</em> 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. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/31/tortnegligence-fraud-unfair-trade-practices-real-property-mortgages-banks-banking-ilsa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trusts &amp; Estates &#8211; Wills – Executors’ Authority – Real Property – Mortgages&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/23/trusts-estates-wills-executors-authority-real-property-mortgages/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/23/trusts-estates-wills-executors-authority-real-property-mortgages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trusts and Estates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executors’ Authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trusts & estates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=65319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>RL Regi North Carolina, LLC v. Estate of Moser </em>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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/23/trusts-estates-wills-executors-authority-real-property-mortgages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil Practice &#8211; Motion to Continue – Retain Counsel – Sufficient Time – Real Property – Mortgages – Foreclosure&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/24/civil-practice-motion-to-continue-retain-counsel-sufficient-time-real-property-mortgages-foreclosure/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/24/civil-practice-motion-to-continue-retain-counsel-sufficient-time-real-property-mortgages-foreclosure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motion to Continue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retain Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sufficient Time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=64284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>In re Foreclosure of the Deed of Trust of Johnson</em> 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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/24/civil-practice-motion-to-continue-retain-counsel-sufficient-time-real-property-mortgages-foreclosure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance &#8211; Fire – Application Misrepresentations – Inspection Results – Real Property – Mortgages – First Impression – Bank as Mortgagee &amp; Loss Payee&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/01/insurance-fire-application-misrepresentations-inspection-results-real-property-mortgages-first-impression-bank-as-mortgagee-loss-payee/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/01/insurance-fire-application-misrepresentations-inspection-results-real-property-mortgages-first-impression-bank-as-mortgagee-loss-payee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Middle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Application Misrepresentations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bank as Mortgagee & Loss Payee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first impression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inspection Results]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Colony Insurance Co. v. Peterson</em> 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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/01/insurance-fire-application-misrepresentations-inspection-results-real-property-mortgages-first-impression-bank-as-mortgagee-loss-payee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Mortgages – Joint Tenancy – Severance – Tenancy in Common – First Impression&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/18/real-property-mortgages-joint-tenancy-severance-tenancy-in-common-first-impression/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/18/real-property-mortgages-joint-tenancy-severance-tenancy-in-common-first-impression/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 20:09:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first impression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joint Tenancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Severance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tenancy in Common]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Reed</em> 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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/18/real-property-mortgages-joint-tenancy-severance-tenancy-in-common-first-impression/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
