In Re: JAMES A. ROSE, III v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, As Trustee; Residential Funding Company, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1285
In Re: JAMES A. ROSE, III,
Debtor.
----------------------------------
ALGERNON LEE BUTLER, III, Trustee in Bankruptcy for James A.
Rose, III,
Trustee – Appellant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE;
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
WILLIAM WALT PETTIT,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (7:09-cv-00145-FL; L-08-00080-8-AP)
Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Algernon L. Butler, III, BUTLER & BUTLER, L.L.P., Wilmington,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Alan B. Powell, Christopher C.
Finan, ROBERSON, HAWORTH & REESE, P.L.L.C., High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Algernon L. Butler, III, as trustee in bankruptcy for
the estate of James A. Rose, III, appeals from the district
court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying the
trustee’s motion seeking to invalidate — on the basis of a
typographical error — the deed of trust currently held by
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas on certain real property of
the estate. The bankruptcy court and the district court held
that a bona fide purchaser would have been on notice as to the
error in the deed and, therefore, the trustee may not avoid the
lien under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) (2006). We have reviewed the
record included on appeal, the parties’ briefs, and all
supplemental materials before the court and we find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
below. In re Rose (Butler v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co.), Nos.
7:09-cv-00145-FL; L-08-00080-8-AP (E.D.N.C. July 20, 2009; Feb.
9, 2010). We deny the Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of
this court’s order entered June 10, 2010, 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 --