McDaniel v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-CV-00500-KDB-MTO (W.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2026)
In McDaniel v. Experian, the Western District of North Carolina provides a useful reminder of an increasingly important distinction in Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation: a consumer’s dispute over whether she should have to pay a debt is not, standing alone, an “inaccuracy” in her credit report.
The Western District of North Carolina has denied DBMP LLC leave to take an interlocutory appeal from Bankruptcy Judge Ashley Austin Edwards’ extensive rulings requiring production of hundreds of documents in the long-running DBMP asbestos bankruptcy.
The authors document that the costs of student debt extend beyond borrowers to their parents. Exploiting the student loan federal payment moratorium, which paused payments for a subset of borrowers, the authors estimate the effect of children's debt relief on parental finances. Parents of treated borrowers experience a 5.7% reduction in installment delinquencies, a 6.4% decline in bankruptcy, and increased mortgage, installment, and home equity borrowing.
In Williams v. Drexel University, Chief Judge Wendy Beetlestone allowed a former Drexel University student’s claims to proceed based on Drexel’s alleged use of academic records and access restrictions to collect unpaid tuition—including while the student was in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
The case is a useful reminder that a university wearing an academic cap does not necessarily stop being a creditor, and withholding a transcript can be debt collection just as surely as sending a collection letter.
In Williams v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC, No. 5:25-CV-505-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2026), Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered a default judgment against a debt collector that apparently had difficulty understanding the phrase “I refuse to pay.”
The consumer received collection texts concerning two separate accounts. Regarding one account, she responded:
“I refuse to pay any debt associated with any and all accounts in your office!”
In Perkins v. PHEAA, Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. of the Middle District of North Carolina provides a fairly emphatic reminder that an issue actually decided in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding does not become available for another round of litigation simply because the debtor later develops new arguments—or new labels—for why the original decision was wrong.
