Gmac v. Morris Dwayne Horne; Aaron La Vigne; Amanda La Vigne

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1848
GMAC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
CITIFINANCIAL AUTO CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
MORRIS DWAYNE HORNE; AARON LA VIGNE; AMANDA LA VIGNE,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
AMY LILLIAN TAYLOR,
Defendant.
No. 08-1850
GMAC; CITIFINANCIAL AUTO CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
MORRIS DWAYNE HORNE; AARON LA VIGNE; AMANDA LA VIGNE,
Defendants – Appellants,
and

-- 1 of 3 --

2
AMY LILLIAN TAYLOR,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cv-00515-REP)
Submitted: August 20, 2010 Decided: September 1, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Katherine M. Sutcliffe Becker, Barkley Clark, STINSON,
MORRISON & HECKER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for GMAC. James
Michael Flaherty, BOLEMAN LAW FIRM, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Mark
Clifton Leffler, BOLEMAN LAW FIRM, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia,
for Morris Dwayne Horne, Aaron La Vigne, and Amanda La Vigne.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, the parties appeal from
the district court’s order affirming in part and reversing in
part the bankruptcy courts’ orders finding that a portion of
GMAC’s claims in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings are
unsecured. In light of our decision in In re Price, 562 F.3d
618 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding debtor’s negative equity in a
trade-in vehicle included in amount financed created a purchase
money obligation within the meaning of 11 U.S.C.
§ 1325(a)(2006), we summarily affirm the portion of the district
court’s order at issue in No. 08-1850. Because the parties have
settled the remaining issues by filing an amended plan in the
bankruptcy court, we dismiss No. 08-1848 as moot. Accordingly,
we deny GMAC’s motion to retain jurisdiction. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --