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)
14-1259•In re: Highland Construction Management Services, Lp v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, for the use and benefit of Jerome Guyant IRA
14-1259Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 25, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1259
IN RE: HIGHLAND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP,
Debtor,
-------------------------------------------------------
HIGHLAND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, for the use and benefit of Jerome
Guyant IRA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01244-CMH-TRJ; 11-bk-11413-RGM)
Submitted: September 24, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Campbell, CAMPBELL FLANNERY PC, Leesburg, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil D. Goldman, GOLDMAN & VAN BEEK, PC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Highland Construction Mgmt. Servs., LP, appeals from
the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s
order allowing the proof of claim filed by Wells Fargo Bank, NA
(FBO Jerome Guyant IRA) as a secured claim, entitled to
priority. 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.
Highland Constr. Mgmt. Servs., LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Nos. 1:13-cv-01244-CMH-TRJ; 11-bk-11413-RGM (E.D. Va. filed Feb.
21, 2014, entered Feb. 24, 2014; July 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.