Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

David Morris v. W. Scott, 16-1266 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1266 Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1266 In re: DAVID BENJAMIN MORRIS; CANDACE APRIL MORRIS, Debtors, - DAVID BENJAMIN MORRIS; CANDACE APRIL MORRIS, Debtors – Appellants, v. W. STEPHEN SCOTT, Trustee – Appellee, and US TRUSTEE; MARGARET K. GARBER, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00021-GEC) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1266 In re: DAVID BENJAMIN MORRIS; CANDACE APRIL MORRIS, Debtors, ------------------------------------------ DAVID BENJAMIN MORRIS; CANDACE APRIL MORRIS, Debtors – Appellants, v. W. STEPHEN SCOTT, Trustee – Appellee, and US TRUSTEE; MARGARET K. GARBER, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00021-GEC) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry L. Miller, MILLER LAW GROUP, P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellants. Neal L. Walters, SCOTT KRONER, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: David Benjamin Morris and Candace April Morris appeal the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the Trustee’s objection to the Morrises’ claimed exemption with respect to their 2014 income tax refunds. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Morris v. Scott, No. 3:15-cv-00021-GEC (W.D. Va. filed Feb. 8 & entered Feb. 9, 2016). 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
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