Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Business Loan Express v. Pak, 04-2203 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2203 Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 01, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2203 BUSINESS LOAN EXPRESS, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HEKYONG PAK, Defendant - Appellant, and H&K FAMILY TRUST, LLC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-04-634-JFM) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2203 BUSINESS LOAN EXPRESS, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HEKYONG PAK, Defendant - Appellant, and H&K FAMILY TRUST, LLC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-04-634-JFM) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hekyong Pak, Appellant Pro Se. Joel S. Aronson, RIDBERG, PRESS & SHERBILL LLP, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Hekyong Pak appeals the district court’s order entering judgment in favor of Business Loan Express, LLC, for $200,000 and declaring the transfer of property known as 29 W. North Ave., Baltimore, Maryland, from Hosurl and Kyuryon Pak to H&K Family Trust, LLC, null and void. Pak also appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bus. Loan Express v. Pak, No. CA-04-634-JFM (D. Md. July 9, 2004 & Aug. 23, 2004). 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer