Lillian Woody v. Bank of America Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cv-00398-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998489845] [10-1775, 10-1852]

Lillian Woody v. Bank of America Corporation

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1775 Document: 23

Date Filed: 12/22/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1775 LILLIAN WOODY; FRED WOODY, JR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1852 LILLIAN WOODY; FRED WOODY, JR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00398-D) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1775 Document: 23

Date Filed: 12/22/2010

Page: 2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lillian Woody and Fred Woody, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. Joseph Samuel Dowdy, Donald Richard Pocock, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 10-1775 Document: 23

Date Filed: 12/22/2010

Page: 3

PER CURIAM: Lillian and Fred Woody ("Appellants") appeal the

district court's orders dismissing their statutory and common law claims against Bank of America Corp., Bank of America, N.A., and BAC Home Loans Servicing ("Appellees"). Appellants also

appeal the district court's order denying their motion for a new trial. We affirm both judgments. Appellants raised several claims in the district court invoking the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Home Owners Equity

Protection Act, the Federal Reserve Board's regulations, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, among others. On appeal, Appellants

have abandoned the majority of their statutory and common law claims, arguing that the district court erred in failing to rule on their claim that Appellees violated North Carolina law by failing to file a prospectus and registration statement.

However, Appellants failed to raise this claim to any legally discernable degree in their complaint, and to the extent that they attempted to elaborate on it in subsequent filings and on appeal in this court, we conclude that the argument is waived. Appellants denying their motion claim to that join the district court erred We in

additional

parties.

have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. of Am. Corp., No. 5:09-cv-00938-D (E.D.N.C.,

Woody v. Bank 9, 2010).

June

Finally, Appellants claim that the court erred in denying their 3

Case: 10-1775 Document: 23

Date Filed: 12/22/2010

Page: 4

motion for a new trial. find no reversible error. Bank of Am. Corp., No.

Again, we have reviewed the record and We affirm on that basis. 5:09-cv-00938-D (E.D.N.C., Woody v. June 25,

2010). We court. legal before therefore affirm the judgments of the district

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

4