M. Blane Michael

Born 1943 · Charleston, SC

📰 News & journal →

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

Goldman v. Capital City Mortgage Corp. (In Re Nieves)
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011-06-10 · cited 28×
This case involved a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee seeking to avoid a series of transfers of an 11.8-acre Maryland property originally owned by the debtor, ultimately targeting the third transferee, Capital City Mortgage Corporation (CCM), which had made a loan secured by the property. The bankruptcy court ruled in the trustee's favor, avoiding the transfer to CCM under 11 U.S.C. § 550(b) because CCM failed to establish it took the property for value, in good faith, and without knowledge of the transfer's voidability. The district court affirmed, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed as well. The core reasoning was that CCM exhibited willful ignorance by failing to verify basic facts about the borrower (1st Financial), conduct any meaningful title or records search, or investigate obvious red flags in the chain of title and loan application, such as the borrower's questionable status, lack of financial information, and suspiciously timed transfers for little or no consideration shortly before the debtor's bankruptcy filing.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
United States v. MacDonald
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011-04-19 · cited 50×
In this case, Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted in 1979 of murdering his wife and two daughters, sought postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on newly discovered evidence from former Deputy U.S. Marshal Jim Britt and later DNA test results, asserting a due process claim and a freestanding actual innocence claim. The district court denied MacDonald's motions, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over the DNA claim due to his failure to obtain additional prefiling authorization and declining to consider the DNA and other evidence as part of the 'evidence as a whole' for the Britt claim. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded, holding that the lower court took an overly restrictive view of the evidence and erred in renouncing jurisdiction over the DNA claim. The appeals court granted prefiling authorization for the DNA claim to allow the district court to evaluate it directly under the § 2255(h)(1) standard.
criminal lawprocedure

Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

Goldman v. Capital City Mortgage Corp. (In Re Nieves)
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011-06-10 · cited 28×
This case involved a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee seeking to avoid a series of transfers of an 11.8-acre Maryland property originally owned by the debtor, ultimately targeting the third transferee, Capital City Mortgage Corporation (CCM), which had made a loan secured by the property. The bankruptcy court ruled in the trustee's favor, avoiding the transfer to CCM under 11 U.S.C. § 550(b) because CCM failed to establish it took the property for value, in good faith, and without knowledge of the transfer's voidability. The district court affirmed, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed as well. The core reasoning was that CCM exhibited willful ignorance by failing to verify basic facts about the borrower (1st Financial), conduct any meaningful title or records search, or investigate obvious red flags in the chain of title and loan application, such as the borrower's questionable status, lack of financial information, and suspiciously timed transfers for little or no consideration shortly before the debtor's bankruptcy filing.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
United States v. MacDonald
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011-04-19 · cited 50×
In this case, Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted in 1979 of murdering his wife and two daughters, sought postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on newly discovered evidence from former Deputy U.S. Marshal Jim Britt and later DNA test results, asserting a due process claim and a freestanding actual innocence claim. The district court denied MacDonald's motions, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over the DNA claim due to his failure to obtain additional prefiling authorization and declining to consider the DNA and other evidence as part of the 'evidence as a whole' for the Britt claim. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded, holding that the lower court took an overly restrictive view of the evidence and erred in renouncing jurisdiction over the DNA claim. The appeals court granted prefiling authorization for the DNA claim to allow the district court to evaluate it directly under the § 2255(h)(1) standard.
criminal lawprocedure