Significant Court Cases of O. Max Gardner III

BANKRUPTCY CASES: 

In re Shelby Yarn Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This was the first reported case in the United States where the former employees of a company successfully filed an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against their former employer (in this case a textile company) and then through the bankruptcy process recovered damages and other compensation. After assuming jurisdiction of the case, the Bankruptcy Court appointed a Special Committee to represent the 637 former employees and designated O. Max Gardner III as Counsel for the Committee. The Court also designated Gardner as Special Counsel to the Chapter 7 Trustee. The Committee, which was granted standing to sue in its own name, was originally a party plaintiff in an adversary proceeding filed against the former officers, stockholders and investors of Shelby Yarn. The adversary proceeding included claims under the WARN Act, the ERISA Act, the COBRA Act, and numerous other Federal and State statutes. The case has been extensively covered by the National and Local Media and was the Cover Story in the September 2000 issue of Business North Carolina.. The adversary case was settled in March of 2004 by the Trustee for $2,000,000.00, plus an additional $100,000.00 the Trustee collected in funds from collateral parties. The settlement was thereafter approved by the United Sates Bankruptcy Court on April 30, 2004. Each of the 637 former employees of Shelby Yarn will receive on the average 4 and 1/2 weeks of back pay under the terms of the settlement. The former employees, who had been granted an administrative priority claim for at least 60 days of back pay, were the only creditors of Shelby Yarn to receive any part of the distributions from the Trustee.

Head v. SouthTrust Bank, N.A. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). The debtor in this case filed a motion for sanctions against the Bank for repeated efforts to collect a debt that was included in her Chapter 13 case. The debtor was contacted directly by collection agents of the Bank even though the Bank knew that the debtor was involved in a pending Bankruptcy case and that the debtor was represented by an attorney. The case was resolved for the sum of $14,500.00 in damages, costs and legal fees.

Carson v. Diamond Pawn Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). Prior to the filing of his Chapter 13 case, the debtor secured a loan from Diamond Pawn in exchange for providing the Company with a possessory lien on consumer goods. After the Bankruptcy filing, the Company took the position that it had the right under Section 91A-7(c)(1) of the North Carolina General Statutes to sell or dispose of the pledged personal property since the account had not been paid "within 60 days of the maturity date of the original contract." The debtor filed a motion for sanctions for a violation of the automatic stay. In a case of first impression, the Bankruptcy Court held that "any action by the respondents to dispose of property pledged as collateral for al loan under the provisions of Chapter 91A of the North Carolina General Statutes without court approval is a violation of the automatic stay and will result in the imposition of sanctions including but not limited to replacement of the said collateral by like kind, actual damages, punitive damages, and legal fees and expenses."

Marshall v. Spindale Savings & Loan, (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This was one of the first cases decided in the United States after the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978, which permitted a debtor to recover possession and ownership of her single-family residence after the property had been sold as a result of a state court foreclosure sale. The case was tried by the debtor on the theory that the home was sold at foreclosure for less than its reasonably equivalent value, thereby constituting a fraudulent conveyance under Section 548 of Title 11 of the United States Code. The decision had substantial impact upon foreclosure sales and upon the issuance of title insurance polices throughout the United States. 

Bailey v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In this case, the debtor sold her single-family residence with court approval during her Chapter 13 case. The sale paid-off the first and second mortgage loans on the property. Several must after the closing the debtor converted the case to a Chapter 7 proceeding and secured her discharge. After the entry of the discharge order, Fairbanks, which had acquired the servicing rights to the second mortgage, issued numerous demands for payment on the acquired rights. A substantial portion of the rights acquired included fees and charges that had neither been applied for nor approved by the court during the Chapter 13 or Chapter 7 cases. The debtor filed a motion to reopen her case and then pursued a discharge violation against Fairbanks. The case was resolved by way of a settlement. Several months thereafter Fairbanks commenced further collection activities including but not limited to placing forced placed insurance on the home no longer owned by the debtor, sending the debtor bills for taxes and other charges, and finally commencing a foreclosure proceeding against the home the debtor sold during her Chapter 13 case. The case was settled for the sum of $23,000.00 in damages and legal fees.

Hudson v. Chrysler Credit & Creditors Interchange (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case was filed by the debtor to enforce the discharge injunction entered in her Chapter 13 case and for other non-bankruptcy law violations. The court entered a judgment against Chrysler for $23,000.00 and then gave Chrysler credit for a pre-trial settlement with the collection agency in the sum of $2,000.00. After Chrysler failed to pay the judgment, the debtor filed a motion for the entry of an order to garnish funds payable to Chrysler by the Chapter 13 Trustee in other Chapter cases in which Chrysler was a secured creditor and entitled to payment. The court granted this motion. Thereafter, the case was settled with Chrysler for the sum of $17,750.00. 

Canipe v. Avco Mortgage & Acceptance Corp., (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This was one of the first reported cases in the United States which allowed a Chapter 13 debtor to include post-petition mortgage arrearages within a confirmed Chapter 13 plan. Prior to this decision, the majority view held that a Chapter 13 debtor could only include pre-petition mortgage payments within a Chapter 13 repayment plan.

The Whistlestop of Shelby, Inc. v. Kendrick's Inc., (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This was an action filed by the Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession for breach of a lease agreement. The tenant-defendant contested the action and moved the Bankruptcy Court for a trial by jury. This request was granted and as a result the case was one of the first jury trials to be held before a bankruptcy judge after the enactment of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code. The debtor prevailed and obtained a money judgment of breach of contract. The judgment was paid by the Defendant. 

Dawkins v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In this case, Chase filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay for a default in direct mortgage payments. This motion was conditionally denied. The uncontradicted evidence at the hearing established that the fair market value of the property was $55,000.00 and that the total debt owed to Chase was approximately $39,326.29. The attorney for Chase then filed an application for a court approved legal fee of $11,287.71. In denying this application as filed, the court held the availability of legal fees to a secured creditor in a Chapter 13 case is governed by Section 506 of the Code and Rule 2016 of the Bankruptcy Rules. The court also held that while the right to even apply for such fees is based on the contract and state law, the "reasonableness" of such fees "is determined by the bankruptcy court based on federal bankruptcy law." In holding that a secured creditor may deplete what equity there is in the collateral at the expense of the debtors and other creditors, the court stated that "a secured creditor is prohibited from getting a windfall by extracting attorneys' fees in excess of what could legitimately be demanded in a bankruptcy proceeding. It is a well-recognized attribute of the broad powers of bankruptcy courts to prevent an unjust enrichment of one creditor at the expense of others."

Sipe v. Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation f/k/a Green Tree Financial (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In this case, Conseco continued to send these Chapter 13 debtors monthly billing statements post-petition. The statements were issued notwithstanding the fact that the entire debt on the mobile home was being paid through the Chapter 13 plan and the debtors were making all of their plan payments on a timely basis. Each statement included a coupon for payments; indicated that the payments had to be made within 7 days to avoid a late charge; included a late charge assessed for each prior month; and also included the following as an important message: "Please pay the Bankruptcy Trustee or Conseco directly, according to the terms of your Bankruptcy plan." The debtors and their attorney made repeatedly contacted Conseco for an explanation of the "late charges" on the monthly billing statements but never received a response. After receiving a threat from Conseco to foreclose, the debtors filed a motion for sanctions for automatic stay and other violations. Based on these facts, the court found that Conseco had "engaged and participated in a level of debtor harassment that should not take place and which subjects Conseco to the imposition of sanctions by the court." In addition to a violation of the automatic stay, the court also concluded that Conseco was guilty of "the commission of the tort of harassment against debtors who are complying with their Chapter 13 plans." Finally, the court also found that Conseco had failed to comply with the North Carolina lien release statutes since the full amount of the over-secured claim had been paid under the plan and awarded damages and legal fees of $6,200.00. This judgment was paid by Conseco.

Guzman v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In this case, the debtors filed a motion for sanctions against The Associates for a willful violation of the automatic stay. The Court entered a Judgment in the sum of $15,000.00 and this Judgment was fully satisfied. After the judgment was satisfied, The Associates caused two additional demands to be issued to the debtors in violation of the automatic stay. This matter was resolved by the entry of a Supplemental Order in the sum of $17,500.00. This judgment was subsequently paid in full by The Associates.

Jones v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of the filing of a motion by the debtor for a willful violation of the automatic stay. The court entered a Judgment awarding the debtor $2,500.00 in damages, costs and fees. The Judgment was subsequently satisfied by The Associates.

Roberts v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of the filing of a motion for a willful violation of the automatic stay. The court entered a judgment imposing damages and legal fees in the sum of $2,500.00. The Judgment was subsequently satisfied by The Associates.

Romine v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a violation of the automatic stay by The Associates and Credit Claims & Collections, a collection agency employed by The Associates. The court entered a judgment imposing sanctions in the form of $2,500.00 in damages and legal fees. The Judgment was subsequently satisfied by The Associates.

Long v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of two separate violations of the automatic stay by The Associates. The court awarded damages and legal fees in the sum of $2,500.00 for the first violation. This Judgment was paid by The Associates. With respect to the second and subsequent violation, the court ordered The Associates to pay the aggregate sum of $10,000.00 in damages and legal fees. This amount was paid in full by The Associates and the matter was resolved by a Consent Order.

Powell v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a violation of the automatic stay by The Associates and Associates National Bank. The case was resolved by a voluntary settlement of $6,000.00 in damages and legal fees, which was paid in full by The Associates.

Shropshire v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a violation of the automatic stay by The Associates. The matter was resolved by the entry of a Consent Order requiring The Associates to pay the sum of $10,000.00 in damages and legal fees. The Judgment was satisfied by The Associates.

Blanton v. Citicorp (case #1), (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This case was widely reported by the media throughout the United States after the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina entered an order imposing sanctions of $505,000 against Citibank and Citicorp for violating the automatic stay. The court took judicial notice that Citicorp had been involved in numerous stay violations in a period of several weeks in other cases and that Citicorp had "demonstrated a total lack of interest or concern for the violations in those cases." Additionally, the court ordered the President of Citicorp Financial, Inc., and the Chairman of its Board of Directors to appear before the Court. The case was subsequently resolved for a confidential amount that was less than the judgment imposed by the Court.

Blanton v. Citicorp (case #2), (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This was one of the first cases in the United States where the debtors used a psychologist to document psychic trauma and psychic injuries rising out of a willful violation of the automatic stay. 

Testerman v. Barclays Bank, (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This case also arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The court imposed sanctions of $40,000 at the conclusion of the debtor's evidence. 

McCoyle v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulations of the release. 

Leonard v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Huskey v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Cannedy v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Surratt v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Spencer v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Stroup v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Glenn v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Bailey v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Williams v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Webber v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Murphy v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a motion for sanctions for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Charlotte Freight Association v. Belk Stores Services, et al., (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of a Chapter 7 filing by a non-profit shippers association. The former directors of the association along with those members they represented were sued for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, self-dealing, and other torts. The case was settled after extensive discovery for more than $1,200,000. 

Charlotte Freight Association v. Automatic Operations d/b/a Popular Club, et al., (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). This case also arose out of the same Chapter 7 filing as the Belk case. In this action, however, the defendants were the former members of the non-profit shippers association. These members were sued on the theory that they had been "undercharged" by the association for the freight shipped through the organization. The damages were based on the total bankruptcy debt of the association and the liability of each member was based on its pro-rata share of freight shipped during a designated time period. The case was settled for more than $1,000,000. It is the only known case in the United States where members of a non-profit freight association have been sued under these types of damage and liability theories. 

Stark v. Crestar Bank and Fannie Mae (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). In this case, the Bankruptcy Court held that Crestar Bank violated the automatic stay and also breached the mortgage contracts by charging the debtor a monthly "inspection fee" or "property preservation fee" without prior notice to the debtors and without seeking the prior approval for such charges by the Bankruptcy Court. Stark has been cited hundreds of times throughout the United States with respect to many other charges that mortgage creditors and servicers have secretly charged to the accounts of bankruptcy debtors. It was the first case in the United States that held such charges were unlawful under the Bankruptcy Code.

Smith v. TMS Mortgage Company (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). In this case, the Plaintiff filed a "class action" for improper legal fees and charges on behalf of all similarly situated debtors in Chapter 13 cases in the Western District of North Carolina. The case was heard by the three Bankruptcy Judges for the District sitting en banc. In a decision of first impression, the Judges held that it was improper for The Money Store to include in a proof of claim a legal fee, charge or expenses for preparing the proof of claim. The Judges held that in most cases no such fee would be in order since the preparation of a proof of claim did not require the services of a lawyer. However, in those cases where such services were deemed necessary by the creditor, any such fees would have to be approved by the Court after proper notice to all parties and a court hearing. The Court ordered all pending Chapter 13 cases in the Western District to be reviewed for such fees and for TMS to amend all claims including such fees and charges and to rebate all such fees and charges actually collected, with interest, to the appropriate debtors. The Court also ordered TMS to pay all of the legal fees and expenses incurred by the attorneys for the debtors. Finally, the court entered a Standing Administrative Order providing that all such fees, charges and expenses of secured creditors in Chapter 13 cases had to be approved by the Court after notice and hearing.

Mitchell v. Homecomings Financial Network (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In this case, the creditor filed a motion for relief from stay. During the course of discovery, it was determined that the creditor had charged approximately $1,362.99 in improper fees and charges to the debtor's account. As a result, the case was resolved by the creditor agreeing to permanently remove these charges, to provide the debtor a credit of approximately $3,715.62 against current payments, and to pay the sum of $2,500.00 in damages and legal fees.

In Re Fuller, (United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina). In this case, the Bankruptcy Court held that federal not state law governed the award of legal fees to secured creditors in bankruptcy. The debtor had contested a request for legal fees by a secured creditor based on state law, which permitted an award equal to fifteen percent of the outstanding indebtedness. The court rejected this argument and held that although the right to assert a claim for legal fees was based on state law the nature, amount and extent of such fees was strictly a question of Federal Bankruptcy Law.

England v CIT (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In this case of first impression, the Bankruptcy Court found that the debtor could pursue a claim under the North Carolina Retail Installment Sales Act and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act against a creditor who failed to release the lien it held on the debtors' mobile home post-discharge. The creditor had argued that it had not violated the discharge injunction in bankruptcy since it had made no demand for payment on the debtors and furthermore that the only remedies available to the debtors were limited to those provided by the Bankruptcy Code. The Court rejected this argument and held that such state law claims were not subject to any pre-emption by the Bankruptcy Code.

Phelps v Key Bank USA (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In this case, the debtor filed a motion to modify his plan by abandoning a motor vehicle secured by a first lien in favor of Key Bank. Key Bank proceeded to recover the vehicle and dispose of the same by a public or private sale. Key Bank then filed a proof of claim for the deficiency. The claim included a "hidden" legal fee that had not been approved by the Court. The Court held that this was a violation of the automatic stay and of Rule 2016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and imposed sanctions. Specifically, the court held that all property acquired post-petition by the debtor, including earnings, was "property of the estate" and therefore protected by the automatic stay. Since Key Bank had failed to file an application for the approval of such fees under Rule 2016 of the Bankruptcy Rules, its efforts to secretly collect those fees under the plan violated the stay. The court also noted that even if Key Bank had applied for such fees the application would have been denied under Section 506 of the Code since their was no "equity" in the collateral. The court also directed the Bank to review all such claims filed in all Chapter 13 cases in the Western District of North Carolina and to file proper amended claims and/or refunds with the respective Chapter 13 Trustee. The case was resolved by a confidential settlement agreement. 

Bennett v. Wells Fargo Bank (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of the failure of the Bank to release its lien on the title to a motor vehicle after the debtor completed her Chapter 13 plan and secured a full discharge of the debt. As a result, the debtor filed an adversary proceeding for a violation of the discharge injunction and the North Carolina lien release statutes. The case was resolved by the Bank agreeing to immediately cancel its lien on the title, to cause a new title to be issued to the debtor, and to pay the sum of $14,000.00 in damages and legal fees.

Williams v. Homeside Lending, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). The Chapter 13 debtors filed this case against Homeside for alleged violations of the automatic stay, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Law. In the complaint, the debtors alleged that in the settlement of a prior motion for relief from stay Homeside agreed not to charge any additional legal fees or charges to the account without the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. The debtors alleged that Homeside breached this agreement by secretly adding the sum of $3,332.43 in legal fees and charges to their loan balance. The case was resolved by Homeside agreeing to cancel and discharge all such charges, by agreeing to refrain from imposing any such charges in the future without the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, by vacating the prior order that granted Homeside relief from stay upon any default in future mortgage payments, by providing the debtors a credit of $5,053.92 on their outstanding mortgage balance, and by paying the debtors the sum of $7,777.00 in damages and legal fees.

Morris v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In this case, the debtors filed a motion for sanctions for alleged violations of the automatic stay, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Law. The case was resolved by The Associates agreeing to discharge an unsecured claim of $73,262.84, by converting a secured second mortgage in the sum of $16,763.29 to an unsecured claim, by fully discharging a third unsecured claim in the sum of $2,802.54, and by paying monetary damages and legal fees in the sum of $10,000.00.

Bruce v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case involved an alleged violation of the automatic stay arising out of serious, severe and continuing problems with the bankruptcy/collection operations of The Associates. The case was resolved by The Associates withdrawing and canceling a claim in the sum of $3,819.10, canceling and marking paid a 3rd deed of trust on the residence, withdrawing and canceling a second claim in the sum of $1,977.68, providing the debtors a credit of $4,924.20 on the residential mortgage, and paying monetary damages and legal fees in the sum of $21,000.00.

Franklin v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case involved an alleged violation of the automatic stay and of other non-bankruptcy consumer protection statutes. The case was resolved by The Associates agreeing to withdraw and cancel two proofs of claim in the aggregate sum of $832.50 and by paying the sum of $7,500.00 in damages and legal fees.

Holland v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay in a pending Chapter 13 case. The case was resolved by The Associates agreeing to withdraw and cancel the following claims: a claim in the sum of $4,493.42, a claim in the sum of $40.00, and a claim in the sum of $561.51. The Associates also paid damages and legal fees in the sum of $10,000.00.

Jones v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay and other non-bankruptcy consumer protection statutes. The case was resolved by The Associates agreeing to withdraw and cancel the following claims: a claim in the sum of $604.84, a claim in the sum of $100.00, and a claim in the sum of $350.66. The Associates also paid damages and legal fees in the sum of $10,000.00.

Kelley v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay and the breach of settlement agreement involving a prior violation in the same case. The case was resolved by The Associates agreeing to cancel and discharge the debtor from a forced placed insurance charge and by paying the sum of $21,000.00 in damages and legal fees.

Ledford v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay by The Associates. The case was resolved by The Associates agreeing to withdraw a proof of claim in the sum of $937.44, to cancel the second deed of trust on the debtors' residence, by releasing the lien on the title to a 1995 Dodge truck, by withdrawing another proof of claim in the sum of $8,360.47, and by paying the sum of $10,000.00 in damages and legal fees.

McElrath v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In this Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, the debtor alleged that The Associates had willfully failed to comply with the automatic stay and to correct serious deficiencies in its bankruptcy compliance system. The case was settled by The Associates agreeing to withdraw and cancel the following claims: a claim in the sum of $2,650.00, a claim in the sum of $4,944.97, a claim in the sum of $500.00, and a claim in the sum of $638.77. The Associates also canceled and released the liens it held on the titles to two motor vehicles and paid the sum of $10,000.00 in damages and legal fees.

Morrison v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay and contempt of an order approving an insurance settlement. The case was resolved by The Associates agreeing to withdraw a proof of claim in the sum of $14,350.49, by canceling the second deed of trust on the debtors' residence, by releasing a lien on the title to a motor vehicle, by providing the debtors with a credit of $7,338.56 on their first mortgage, and by paying the sum of $7,000.00 in damages and legal fees.

Owens v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay and of serious deficiencies in its bankruptcy compliance systems. The case was settled by The Associates agreeing to cancel a lien on a motor vehicle, by withdrawing a proof of claim in the sum of $3,343.26 and a second claim in the sum of $227.73, and by paying the sum of $8,500.00 in damages and legal fees.

Pruitt v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay and the failure to correct serious deficiencies in the bankruptcy compliance systems of The Associates. The case was settled by The Associates agreeing to release its lien on a motor vehicle, to withdraw two proofs of claim of $2,941.40 and $100.00, respectively, and to pay the sum of $10,000.00 in damages and legal fees.

Roper v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by The Associates agreeing to withdraw and cancel a proof of claim in the sum of $100.00, to withdraw and cancel a proof of claim in the sum of $4,942.21, and to pay the sum of $10,000.00 in damages and legal fees.

Emory v. Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay and of numerous non-bankruptcy consumer protection statutes. The case was settled by The Associates agreeing to pay the sum of $10,000.00 in damages and legal fees and to cancel and withdraw a proof of claim in the sum of $4,621.98.

Head v. Avco Financial Services and Associates Financial Services Company (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of violations of the automatic stay by the Associates after its acquisition of Avco. The case was settled by The Associates agreeing to cancel and withdraw a proof of claim in the sum of $1,746.55 and by paying the sum of $7,500.00 in damages and legal fees.

Hayden v. Associates Capital Bank (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay. The case was resolved by The Associates agreeing to cancel and withdraw a proof of claim in the sum of $4,888.06 and by paying the sum of $7,500.00 in damages and legal fees.

Bell v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay and contempt of an order approving an insurance settlement. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Benton v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Carter v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of alleged multiple violations of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Carter v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction, a breach of a prior settlement agreement and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Cloninger v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Crews v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay, a failure to release the lien on the title to the debtors' motor vehicle pursuant to a prior settlement agreement, a violation of the Retail Installment Sales Act, a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a breach of the prior settlement agreement. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Culbreth v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction, a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a breach of a prior settlement agreement. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Davis v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving the failure to release the lien on the title to the debtor's vehicle. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Fowler v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This adversary proceeding arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving the failure to release the lien on the title to the debtors' vehicle. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Gentry v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving attempts to collect a discharged debt. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Gettys v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving forged mortgage loan extension agreements. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Goins v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving attempts to collect a discharged debt. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Hardy v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This adversary proceeding arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction for failure to release the liens on the titles to two of the debtor's vehicles. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Hayes v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay involving a demand for payment of property surrendered under the debtor's Chapter 13 Plan. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Hollifield v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This adversary proceeding arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Hughes v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This adversary proceeding arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Johnson v. Citigroup, Inc., et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Kelley v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This fourth case arose out of an alleged breach of the Terms of the First, Second and Third Release, Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue; a violation of the North Carolina Retail Installment Sales Act; a violation of the North Carolina Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act; a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act; and a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

McCombs v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

McCurry v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Milam v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Morris v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay and for a breach of two prior settlement agreements. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Parker v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving the attempt to collect a discharged debt that was approximately 20 years old. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Petty v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of alleged multiple violations of the automatic stay, an improper misapplication of the debtor's payments and an unauthorized offer of credit to a debtor under bankruptcy. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Phannareth v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving the failure to release the lien on the title to the debtors' vehicle. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Pratt v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving the failure to release the lien on the title to the debtors' vehicle. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Rosenberg v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of alleged multiple violations of the automatic stay, including telephone calls at the debtor's place of employment and to her parents. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Rossman v. CitiFinancial Mortgage Co., Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Rudisill v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving the failure to release the lien on the title to the debtors' vehicle. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Shell v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay and a breach of a prior settlement agreement. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Sigmon v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release. 

Toms v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Walker v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Walker v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of alleged violations of the automatic stay. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Wilson v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This adversary proceeding arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving the failure to release the lien on the title to the debtors' vehicle. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Wray v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving the failure to release the lien on the title to the debtors' vehicle. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Young v. Citigroup, Inc. et. al. (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). This case arose out of an alleged violation of the discharge injunction involving the failure to release the lien on the title to two of the debtor's vehicles. The case was settled by consent and the amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed pursuant to the stipulation of the release.

Non-Bankruptcy Civil Cases:

Wright v. Fiber Industries, Inc., (North Carolina Court of Appeals). In this case, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held for the first time that an employee could maintain a civil action against his or her employer for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Workers' Compensation Act even though the discharge occurred before the employee filed a formal workers' compensation claim. Although this particular fact situation was not encompassed within the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 97-6.1, the Court found that the actions of the employer in discharging the employee violated the spirit and intent of the statute. 

Camp v. Camp, (North Carolina Court of Appeals). This case served to clarify two important points arising out of the enactment of the North Carolina Equitable Distribution Act. Firstly, the Court held that the resumption of the marital relationship would not vacate or void a property settlement agreement unless both parties expressed a clear intent to do so. Under prior case law, one act of sexual intercourse between separated parties would have voided this type of agreement. Secondly, the Court held that even though the parties lived together for a period of approximately ten (10) days after their initial separation this fact would not affect the one (1) year separation period since there was no clear evidence that both parties intended to resume the marital relationship. In fact, the evidence tended to show that the wife simply permitted the husband to live in the former marital home during this period of time as an accommodation to the husband in light of his financial difficulties. 

Hall v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., (United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina). In this case, the jury entered a verdict for the homeowners after a 1984 trial in the sum of $287,746.44. At the time, this case was reported to represent the largest jury verdict obtained in North Carolina in a fire loss case involving a single-family residence. The case was also significant because the defendant offered eleven (11) expert witnesses at trial who testified as to the cause and origin (intentionally set) as well as the incendiary nature of the fire. The defendant also offered a witness who testified that the male plaintiff admitted to the "witness" that he had intentionally set the fire to collect the insurance proceeds. 

Marjorie Allen White v. Dr. Bernard Bressler, Duke University Medical Center, et al., (Cleveland County Superior Court). According to the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, this is one of the largest medical malpractice non-structured settlements (the settlement is confidential) involving a non-physical injury in North Carolina history. All of the plaintiff's alleged injuries were psychological in origin. The case was also significant because the plaintiff used a mock trial, a mirror jury, a jury psychologist, a witness psychologist, a life-care plan, numerous forensic experts, and in excess of thirty-five (35) video depositions. The cost of the litigation exceeded $200,000. The case was featured in lengthy articles published in The Washington Post, The New York Times and in all major North Carolina news publications. Myra McPherson, a Pulitzer Prize winning author, also published a lengthy account of the case entitled "The City of Medicine."

Betty Jordan v. Dr. Bernard Bressler, Duke University Medical Center, et al., (Guilford County Superior Court). This was an action filed for psychiatric malpractice, hospital negligence, and corporate negligence. The case is significant in that it involved numerous alleged acts of corporate and individual medical malpractice. In accordance with the terms of a confidential settlement agreement, the plaintiff can only report that the case was "resolved." 

Jonzella Bailey-Pridham v. Dr. Bernard Bressler, Duke University Medical Center, et al., (Guilford County Superior Court). This was an action filed for psychiatric malpractice, hospital negligence, and corporate negligence. The case involved numerous acts of alleged sexual misconduct by the individual defendant. In accordance with the terms of a confidential settlement agreement, the plaintiff can only report that the case was "resolved." 

Nellie Perdue v. Dr. Bernard Bressler, Duke University Medical Center, et al., (Guilford County Superior Court). This was another action filed for psychiatric malpractice, hospital negligence, and corporate negligence. In accordance with the terms of a confidential settlement agreement, the plaintiff can only report that the case was "resolved." 

Kathleen Crowe v. Dr. Bernard Bressler, Duke University Medical Center, et al., (Guilford County Superior Court). This was the final action filed in a series of multiple cases against these defendants for psychiatric malpractice, hospital negligence, and corporate negligence. In accordance with the terms of a confidential settlement agreement, the plaintiff can only report that the case was "resolved." 

Honeycutt v. Aetna Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., (United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina). When this case was decided in the late 1980's, it was reported as one of the largest reported jury verdicts in North Carolina in a fire loss case where the plaintiff was also a debtor under Chapter 13 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. The case was originally filed as an adversary proceeding before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina but was transferred to the Federal District Court when the defendant requested a revocation of the referral under the emergency rule in effect after Marathon but before the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984. 

Europe Craft Imports, Inc. v. J. C. Penney & Co., (United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina). This was one of the first copyright and trademark infringement cases in North Carolina where the court allowed the plaintiff to seize the infringing items plus any and all documentary evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim without first granting the defendant the right to notice and hearing and based solely upon verified motions and affidavits filed by the plaintiff with the complaint. 

Tallent v. Dr. Jerry Blake, (Cleveland County Superior Court). In this case the plaintiff, a former employee of the Cleveland County Board of Education, filed a defamation action against the Superintendent of the Board of Education based on statements he made to the press that the plaintiff had "quit" her job as opposed to being "fired" by the defendant. This high profile case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, which finally led to the termination of the Superintendent by the Board. The jury verdict was subsequently reversed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Eberhart v. Smith, (Cleveland County Superior Court). This case was a wrongful death action filed against the defendant for compensatory and punitive damages based upon the misconduct of the defendant in operating a motor vehicle while subject to an impairing substance (alcohol). The case resulted in the entry of a substantial judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which at the time was the largest civil judgment ever entered in Cleveland County. The plaintiff was never able to collect any part of the judgment. 

Rogers v. Allen, et al., (Cleveland County Superior Court). This was one of the first cases in North Carolina where a criminal defendant used Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to take pre-complaint depositions of potential prosecution witnesses in pending criminal charges against the plaintiff. Several depositions were taken in this case before the North Carolina Court of Appeals granted a request for a temporary restraining order. The criminal case was then resolved before the Court of Appeals reached the merits of the civil appeal. 

Lackey v. Canipe, et. al., (Cleveland County Superior Court). This was one of the first cases in North Carolina where the plaintiff was able to stack liability insurance coverage against the tortfeasors, his mother and his father in a single vehicle accident (the plaintiff, a minor, was a passenger in the car). Stacking was a crucial element in this case because the plaintiff was diagnosed as an incomplete quadriplegic as a proximate result of the injuries received in this accident. 

CRIMINAL CASES:

State of North Carolina v. Marjorie Hoyle Rogers, (Cleveland County Superior Court). In this case the defendant, who had just been re-elected as Register of Deeds for Cleveland County, was charged in warrants with multiple counts of embezzlement of public funds. The case generated substantial publicity and eventually resulted in the defendant entering a plea of guilty to one felony count of embezzling $12. The defendant was subsequently placed on unsupervised probation. 

State of North Carolina v. Kenneth Hartgrove, (Cleveland County Superior Court). This is one of the few cases in North Carolina where the Grand Jury refused to indict a defendant charged with first-degree murder based on evidence presented to the Grand Jury by the defendant. 

State of North Carolina v. Chauncey Sanders, (Cleveland County Superior Court). In this case, the trial court suppressed the eyewitness identification of the defendant in an armed robbery case based on improper conduct by officers of the Shelby Police Department. The case was significant because during the course of the voir dire hearing the defendant called approximately seven (7) police officers to testify as adverse witnesses. The State had failed to tender any such witnesses. After the motion to suppress was granted, the case was dismissed upon motion of the defendant. 

State of North Carolina v. Curtis O'Neal Hopper, (Cleveland County Superior Court). In this widely publicized case, the defendant was charged with first-degree rape and first-degree sexual offense. During the course of the trial, the prosecuting witness recanted her story on cross-examination and the defendant's motion to dismiss was subsequently granted. 

State of North Carolina v. Steve L. Gash, (Cleveland County Superior Court). In this case, the defendant was convicted of armed robbery and received an active prison sentence of twenty-five (25) years. A motion for appropriate relief was then filed based on the alleged perjured testimony of the prosecuting witness at trial. The alleged post-trial recantation by the prosecuting witness had been taped by defense counsel. The motion was granted. At the second trial, the defendant was convicted of simple assault and received a six-month active sentence. 

State of North Carolina v. Frank Mitchell, (Cleveland County Superior Court). In this case, the defendant was acquitted of the felony charge of firing into an occupied dwelling notwithstanding the fact that the State of North Carolina offered seven (7) eye-witnesses who testified that the defendant was in fact the perpetrator of the crime. 

State of North Carolina v. Johnny Lee Allen, (Cleveland County Superior Court). In this case, the defendant was convicted in 1985 of robbery with a dangerous weapon upon the testimony of five eyewitnesses at a local fast food restaurant. Based on new evidence discovered in 1990, a motion for appropriate relief and for a new trial was filed in Cleveland County Superior Court. Within one week of the filing of the motion (a record time period under any standards), the new trial motion was granted with the consent of the District Attorney and the defendant was set free from the State Prison System on his own promise to appear if the District Attorney elected to pursue the charges in the form of a second trial. Such charges were never re-instituted by the State. 

Other Important Cases: 

Brenda Jones v. Monroe Redden. This case involved an action against the plaintiff's former attorney for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. The case was resolved in favor of the plaintiff before the commencement of any legal action and the amount of the settlement is confidential. 

M. Clark Parker v. N. C. State Bar. This case arose out of a petition filed on behalf of Mr. Parker to be allowed to resume the practice of law subsequent to disbarment for the embezzlement of a client's trust fund monies. After a lengthy hearing, the Committee on Reinstatement recommended that the petition be denied. After a hearing before the full Board of the North Carolina State Bar, the petition was granted and Mr. Parker became one of a very few lawyers in the past 50 years to be reinstated to practice after having been disbarred for embezzlement of client funds. 

As an attorney with almost 30 years of experience, O. Max Gardner III has been involved in many other cases that have not been included in this list, some of which did not result in favorable decisions. It should also be noted in reviewing this list of significant cases that past successes are not an indicator of future successes in any particular case. Each new case presents different facts and as a result each case must stand or fall on its own merits. No attorney can or should guarantee any results to any client or to any potential client. Consequently, the only thing that O. Max Gardner III guarantees is that he will do everything within the law to protect your rights and to pursue any lawful claims on your behalf.