Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wachovia Bank v. William Jarvis, 99-1082 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1082 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1082 In Re: WILLIAM J. JARVIS, Debtor. _ WACHOVIA BANK, successor to Central Fidelity National Bank, Creditor - Appellee, versus WILLIAM J. JARVIS, Debtor - Appellant, and EVELYN K. KRIPPENDORF, Trustee, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-373-R, BK-98-1817-RKR-7) Submitted: June 22, 1999 Decided: Jul
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1082 In Re: WILLIAM J. JARVIS, Debtor. _________________________ WACHOVIA BANK, successor to Central Fidelity National Bank, Creditor - Appellee, versus WILLIAM J. JARVIS, Debtor - Appellant, and EVELYN K. KRIPPENDORF, Trustee, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-373-R, BK-98-1817-RKR-7) Submitted: June 22, 1999 Decided: July 13, 1999 Before MOTZ and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary M. Bowman, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul M. Black, WETHERINGTON, MELCHIONNA, TERRY, DAY & AMMAR, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William J. Jarvis appeals from the district court’s order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order granting Wachovia’s motion for relief from stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362(f) (1994). Our review of the record and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wachovia Bank v. Jarvis, Nos. CA-98-373-R; BK-98-1817-RKR-7 (W.D. Va. Dec. 16, 1998). 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 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