I generally do not comment on motions and responses filed in bankruptcy cases. I usually wait for a judicial decision, both because that gives the dispute some resolution and because pleadings, by definition, present the parties’ competing positions rather than the court’s conclusions.
But when a towing company files bankruptcy and then asks the Bankruptcy Court to order someone else to give its vehicles back, the irony is a little too much to resist.
In Bailey v. Tedeschi, Adv. Pro. No. 25-00030-5-PWM (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2026), Judge Pamela McAfee held that a $171,000 debt arising from a failed interior-design project was dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The Baileys had paid AG Design more than $163,000 for furniture that was not fully ordered or delivered, but the court found no proof that Tedeschi made a knowingly false representation or intended to defraud them when the money was received. Bailey v. Tedeschi (1)
While Discover Bank v. Mustafaa, No. COA26-284 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2026), is unpublished and not controlling authority, it is still a useful warning for consumer attorneys: counterclaims in a collection suit can be compulsory, and a late attempt to add them can cost the client those claims entirely.
In Campbell v. TitleMax of Virginia, Inc., the North Carolina Court of Appeals has again affirmed arbitration awards in favor of North Carolina consumers who crossed state lines to obtain vehicle title loans from TitleMax.
The decision is unpublished and extremely short. But its significance comes precisely from how little the Court thought needed to be said.
In Outer Banks Ventures, Inc. v. Currituck County, No. COA25-798 (N.C. Ct. App. June 3, 2026), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a contract requiring recurring semiannual payments was not an installment contract for statute-of-limitations purposes. Because the plaintiff knew by 2011 that Currituck County was not making the required payments, its 2023 action was barred by the two-year limitations period in N.C.G.S. § 1-53(1) applicable to this contract claim against a local government.
