Robinson v. Option One Mortgage Corp.

Eighth Circuit

Robinson v. Option One Mortgage Corp.

577 F. App'x 630

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2014

DocketNos. 13-3735, 14-1312

StatusPublished

This text of 577 F. App'x 630 (Robinson v. Option One Mortgage Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. Option One Mortgage Corp., 577 F. App'x 630 (8th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, George Robinson challenges the district court’s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment, and denial of post-judgment relief, in this action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures and Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts. Upon careful de novo review, see Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 927, 937 (8th Cir.2013) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper, because the claims are time-barred, see 12 U.S.C. § 2614; 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k); and we also conclude [631]*631that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration, see Noah v. Bond Cold Storage, 408 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, George Robinson challenges the district court’s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment, and denial of post-judgment relief, in this action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures and Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts. Upon careful de novo review, see Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 927, 937 (8th Cir.2013) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper, because the claims are time-barred, see 12 U.S.C. § 2614; 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k); and we also conclude [631]*631that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration, see Noah v. Bond Cold Storage, 408 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 F. App'x 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-option-one-mortgage-corp-ca8-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack