Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rinn v. Fraidin, 07-1756 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1756 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 22, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1756 In Re: JACOB FRAIDIN, Debtor. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MICHAEL G. RINN, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACOB FRAIDIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00782-WMN; BK-92-5-2338-JS; AP-97-05223) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1756 In Re: JACOB FRAIDIN, Debtor. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MICHAEL G. RINN, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACOB FRAIDIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00782-WMN; BK-92-5-2338-JS; AP-97-05223) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacob Fraidin, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gerard Rinn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL G. RINN, Cockeysville, Maryland; Paul-Michael Justin Sweeney, LINOWES & BLOCHER, LLP, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jacob Fraidin appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining the amount of damages for which Fraidin was liable to the trustee of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case in the trustee’s action alleging fraudulent transfers and failure to turn assets over to the bankruptcy trustee. We have reviewed the record and decisions of the bankruptcy court and the district court and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Rinn v. Fraidin, Nos. 1:07-cv-00782-WMN; BK- 92-5-2338-JS; AP-97-05223 (D. Md. July 25, 2007). 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