Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BEHRMANN v. NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED, 14-2178 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: infco20150730117 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . John R. Behrmann, Nancy Behrmann, and their attorneys, Daniel Joseph Schendzielos, Schendzielos & Associates, LLC, Jonathan D. Miller, Nye, Peabody, Stirling, Hale & Miller, LLP, appeal from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order entering judgment against them in the amount of $18,000, based on the court's prior determination of their contempt of court and their delay in pur
More

UNPUBLISHED

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

John R. Behrmann, Nancy Behrmann, and their attorneys, Daniel Joseph Schendzielos, Schendzielos & Associates, LLC, Jonathan D. Miller, Nye, Peabody, Stirling, Hale & Miller, LLP, appeal from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order entering judgment against them in the amount of $18,000, based on the court's prior determination of their contempt of court and their delay in purging the contempt. These Appellants, along with Lelia Palmore Winget-Hernandez, Winget-Hernandez, P.C., John F. Bloss, and Higgins Benjamin PLLC, appeal from the district court's orders determining that the appeal from the $18,000 judgment was frivolous and imposing sanctions based on National Heritage Foundation's attorneys' fees incurred in litigating the appeals and the Appellants' Motion to Strike the Appellee's Brief. We have reviewed the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Behrmann v. Nat'l Heritage Found., Inc., Nos. 1:14-cv-00859-LMB-TCB; 1:14-cv-00875-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 26, entered Sept. 29, 2014; filed Oct. 29, entered Oct. 30, 2014; & Nov. 7, 2014). We grant the Appellee's unopposed motion to submit these appeals on the briefs and 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.

Source:  Leagle

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