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)
14-1062•RICHARD D. SPARKMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee for Anderson Homes, Inc. and Vanguard Homes, Inc. v. American Residential Services, LLC
14-1062Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 7, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1062
RICHARD D. SPARKMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee for Anderson Homes,
Inc. and Vanguard Homes, Inc.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-cv-00346-D; 09-02062-8-SWH; 09-
02071-8-SWH; 11-00213-8-SWH)
Submitted: September 30, 2014 Decided: October 7, 2014
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nelson G. Harris, HARRIS & HILTON, P.A., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John Paul H. Cournoyer, John A.
Northen, NORTHEN BLUE, LLP, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
American Residential Services, LLC, (ARS) appeals from
the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s
orders determining that: (1) certain payments made by the
debtors to ARS constituted preferential transfers, 11 U.S.C.
§ 547(b) (2012), and (2) ARS could not establish defenses under
either 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1) or § 547(c)(2) (2012). We have
reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties’
briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the courts below. Sparkman v. American
Residential Servs., LLC, Nos. 5:13-cv-00346-D; 09-02062-8-SWH;
09-02071-8-SWH; 11-00213-8-SWH (E.D.N.C. filed May 25, 2012;
Mar. 28, 2013; Dec. 30, 2013). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.