Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McGahren v. First Citizens Bank, 19-4771 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-4771 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2269 JOHANNA F. MCGAHREN; JOHANNA F. MCGAHREN, in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of Francis J. McGahren, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and FRANCIS J. MCGAHREN, Plaintiff, versus FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY; FIRST CITIZENS MORTGAGE COMPANY; RICHARD L. MILLER; JAMES E. CREEKMAN; JAMES GARY ROWE; WILLIAM F. WOLCOTT, III, Defendants - Appellees, and RONALD K. PAYNE, Substitute Trustee, Defendant. Appeal from th
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2269 JOHANNA F. MCGAHREN; JOHANNA F. MCGAHREN, in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of Francis J. McGahren, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and FRANCIS J. MCGAHREN, Plaintiff, versus FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY; FIRST CITIZENS MORTGAGE COMPANY; RICHARD L. MILLER; JAMES E. CREEKMAN; JAMES GARY ROWE; WILLIAM F. WOLCOTT, III, Defendants - Appellees, and RONALD K. PAYNE, Substitute Trustee, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-93-143-1) Argued: September 23, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and MAGILL, Senior Cir- cuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Matthew Francis McGahren, BAUM & MCGAHREN, Norcross, Georgia, for Appellants. Earl Thomison Holman, ADAMS, HENDON, CARSON, CROW & SAENGER, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: We have considered the record in this case and the briefs and, after oral argument, are of opinion there is no reversible error in this case. The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed for the reasons sufficiently expressed in its opinion. AFFIRMED 2
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