The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-1907•In re: THOMAS BRUCE PARKER v. Theodore Gregg Parker
11-1907Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 16, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1907
In re: THOMAS BRUCE PARKER,
Debtor,
--------------------------------
RICHARD M. MITCHELL, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THEODORE GREGG PARKER,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
THOMAS BRUCE PARKER; MARGARET JUNE PARKER SCHLAPHOHL; BETTY
JEANNE PARKER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00373-MOC; 04-30593; 04-3051)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Theodore Gregg Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Heather W. Culp,
Richard M. Mitchell, MITCHELL & CULP, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Jessica Virginia Shaddock, John Wesley Taylor,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Following the authorized sale of real property, the
bankruptcy court apportioned the net proceeds among four
siblings, Theodore Gregg Parker, Betty Jeanne Parker, Margaret
June Parker Schlaphohl, and Thomas Bruce Parker—whose interest
became property of his bankruptcy estate—based on the terms of
their mother’s holographic will. The district court affirmed in
part, and reversed in part, the bankruptcy court’s
determination.* Theodore Gregg Parker noted this appeal. We
have reviewed the record and decisions of the bankruptcy court
and the district court and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Mitchell v. Parker, Nos. 3:08-cv-00373-MOC; 04-
30593; 04-03051 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 2011). 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
* The district court noted an error in the bankruptcy
court’s determination of the amount of the reduction in mortgage
principal attributed to Theodore Parker’s payment of the
mortgage and appropriately reversed in part to correct this
error.
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.