In re: Jacqueline W. Granati

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1078
In Re: JACQUELINE W. GRANATI,
Debtor.
JACQUELINE W. GRANATI,
Appellant,
versus
STONE STREET CAPITAL, INCORPORATED; STONE
STREET SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
Appellees.
No. 03-1079
In Re: JACQUELINE W. GRANATI,
Debtor.
JACQUELINE W. GRANATI,
Appellant,
versus

-- 1 of 3 --

2
STONE STREET CAPITAL, INCORPORATED; STONE
STREET SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-1515-A, BK-00-14419, CA-01-1061-SSM, CA-02-
1516-A, CA-01-1025-SSM)
Submitted: April 30, 2003 Decided: May 27, 2003
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacqueline W. Granati, Appellant Pro Se. Carlton Tufts Obecny,
Bethesda, Maryland; Elyse L. Strickland, SELZER, GURVITCH, RABIN &
OBENCY, CHTD., Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Jacqueline W. Granati appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s determinations that Appellees were
the equitable owners of the payments due under an annuity contract,
that this interest was not a dischargeable claim in Granati’s
bankruptcy action, and that Granati’s liability for conversion of
pre-petition payments was nondischargeable in bankruptcy. We have
reviewed the records in these appeals and find no abuse of
discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Granati’s
motion for a contract quantum meruit and affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Granati v. Stone Street, Nos.
CA-02-1515-A, CA-01-1061-SSM, CA-02-1516-A, CA-01-1025-SSM, BK-00-
14419 (E.D. Va. Dec. 24, 2002). We also deny Granati’s motion to
appear by telephone for oral argument and we dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --