Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kathleen Blick v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 12-1423 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1423 Visitors: 57
Filed: Aug. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1423 KATHLEEN BLICK; HAROLD BLICK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As “Trustee” for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As “Trustee” for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Sen
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1423 KATHLEEN BLICK; HAROLD BLICK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As “Trustee” for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As “Trustee” for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00001-NKM-BWC) Submitted: August 21, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathleen Blick, Harold Blick, Appellants Pro Se. Jason Cameron Hicks, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kathleen and Harold Blick appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their action to quiet title in real property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s rejection of their claim that Defendants lacked standing to foreclose on the property. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Blick v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:12-cv-00001-NKM-BWC (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2012). Turning to the Blicks’ remaining claims, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellants’ brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the Blicks fail to challenge the court’s resolution of these claims, they have forfeited appellate review of those issues. We therefore affirm the court’s denial of relief. 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