Branch Banking and Trust Compa v. Betty Rogers


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Betty Rogers. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 15-12675 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-12675 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-01983-GAP-TBS BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, successor in interest to Colonial Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC as receiver for Colonial Bank, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, BETTY ROGERS, an individual, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (April 1, 2016) Case: 15-12675 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 2 of 2 Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Betty Rogers appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to add an affirmative defense and grant of Branch Banking and Trust Company’s motion for summary judgment. We need not consider these challenges, however, as this Court dismissed them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We also limited review on appeal to the deficiency judgment entered against Rogers on June 5, 2015. Rogers fails to discuss the deficiency judgment in either her opening or reply brief, and thus she has waived any arguments pertaining to it. See Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2012) (discussing the well-settled principle that a party abandons an issue “by failing to list or otherwise state it as an issue on appeal”). Accordingly, we affirm the deficiency judgment. AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?