Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Spence v. Joseph S. Knecht, 05-2083 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-2083 Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 15, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2083 CONNIE J. SPENCE, Appellant, versus JOSEPH S. KNECHT AND COMPANY, Appellee, and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-05-103-18) Submitted: July 12, 2006 Decided: August 15, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2083 CONNIE J. SPENCE, Appellant, versus JOSEPH S. KNECHT AND COMPANY, Appellee, and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-05-103-18) Submitted: July 12, 2006 Decided: August 15, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward E. Gilbert, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert A. Kerr, Jr., Brendan P. Langendorfer, HAGOOD & KERR, PA, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Connie J. Spence appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order allowing Joseph S. Knecht and Company’s claim for costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the collection of its debt. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Spence v. Joseph S. Knecht & Co., No. CA-05- 103-18 (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2005). We have previously granted Appellee’s unopposed motion to submit this case on the briefs and therefore 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