Bankruptcy exemption planning often walks a fine line between legitimate preparation and avoidable transfer. In In re Albrecht, Judge Pamela W. McAfee of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina addressed where that line falls when a debtor converts jointly owned real property into a tenancy by the entirety shortly before filing bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy exemption planning often walks a fine line between legitimate preparation and avoidable transfer. In In re Albrecht, Judge Pamela W. McAfee of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina addressed where that line falls when a debtor converts jointly owned real property into a tenancy by the entirety shortly before filing bankruptcy.
In Oliver v. Navy Federal Credit Union, the Fourth Circuit waded into a recurring procedural skirmish in class litigation: when, and how, may a district court knock out class allegations before any discovery? The answer, according to Judge Heytens for the majority, is both simple and consequential—look only at the complaint, and deny certification at the pleading stage only if Rule 23 is unsatisfied as a matter of law.
In Harris v. McLeod (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2026) (unpublished), the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in a dispute over whether an elderly homeowner’s deed to his nephew was an outright conveyance or merely security for a small tax debt—an equitable mortgage in substance if not in form.
In Ray v. TitleMax, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss, holding that North Carolina courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state TitleMax-affiliated lenders who made high-interest title loans to North Carolina residents—even where loan documents were signed across state lines.
In In re Brainard, the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) denied a pro se debtor’s motion for a stay pending appeal of an order converting her case to Chapter 7 for cause. Applying the familiar Rule 8007 / preliminary injunction framework, the court reiterated that a movant must satisfy all four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, lack of harm to others, and service of the public interest.
