Bardell v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

294 F. App'x 47
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 24, 2008·No. No. 07-1909·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Jerome Bardell appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that he was unable to cure the arrearage in his mortgage payments when a foreclosure sale occurred prior to his filing of a petition in bankruptcy and granting Branch Banking & Trust relief from the automatic stay to record the foreclosure sale deed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. In re Bardell, 374 B.R. 588 (N.D.W.Va. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bardell v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 294 F. App'x 47 (4th Cir. 2008).

294 F. App'x 47 (Bardell v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Siegal v. Everett (In re Siegal)
591 B.R. 609 (D. Maryland, 2018)
RBS, Inc. v. Bell (In re Bell)
507 B.R. 898 (S.D. West Virginia, 2014)