Sandra Borkon v. First Union National Bank, successor by merger to CORESTATES BANK, MERIDIAN BANK,…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 01-3775
_____________
SANDRA BORKON,
Appellant
v.
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK,
successor by merger to
CORESTATES BANK, MERIDIAN BANK,
NEW JERSEY AND CHERRY HILL
NATIONAL BANK
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-02850)
District Judge: Hon. William H. Yohn, Jr.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 20, 2002
_____________
Before: SCIRICA, ALITO & McKEE, Circuit Judges
(Filed: September 30, 2002)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
PER CURIAM
This case centers around a promissory note and mortgage executed by Sandra
Borkon and her husband, Jerry Borkon, in favor of Cherry Hill National Bank, which is
the predecessor-in-interest by merger to First Union National Bank. Ms. Borkon was a
homemaker without any independent income or any ownership stake in the business
owned by her husband. She appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment
to the defendant on her action seeking declaratory judgment that the promissory note and
mortgage are null and void based upon alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act and the Federal Reserve Regulation B. Our review of the district court’s grant of
summary judgment is plenary. Huang v. BP Amoco Corp., 271 F.3d 560, 564 (3d. Cir.
2001).
Inasmuch as the district court has already set forth the factual and procedural
history of this case, we find it unnecessary to repeat that history here. See Borkon v.
First Union National Bank, No. 00-2850, 2001 WL 1042854 (E.D.Pa. September 7,
2001). Moreover, in its thoughtful Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court
has carefully and completely explained its reasons for denying Borkon the relief she
seeks and granting summary judgment to the defendant. We need not engage in a
redundant analysis simply to reach the same result.
Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons
set forth in the District Court’s Memorandum Opinion without further elaboration.
______________

-- 1 of 2 --

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
______________
Circuit Judg

-- 2 of 2 --