Richard Sparkman v. American Residential Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-00346-D, 09-02062-8-SWH, 09-02071-8-SWH, 11-00213-8-SWH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999450688]. Mailed to: John Northen. [14-1062]

Appeal: 14-1062

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/07/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1062

RICHARD D. SPARKMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee for Anderson Homes,
Inc. and Vanguard Homes, Inc.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge.
(5:13-cv-00346-D; 09-02062-8-SWH; 0902071-8-SWH; 11-00213-8-SWH)

Submitted:

September 30, 2014

Decided:

October 7, 2014

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nelson G. Harris, HARRIS & HILTON, P.A., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
John Paul H. Cournoyer, John A.
Northen, NORTHEN BLUE, LLP, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1062

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/07/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
American Residential Services, LLC, (ARS) appeals from
the

district

orders
debtors

court’s

determining
to

ARS

order

that:

affirming

(1)

constituted

the

certain

preferential

bankruptcy

payments

court’s

made

transfers,

by

11

the

U.S.C.

§ 547(b) (2012), and (2) ARS could not establish defenses under
either 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1) or § 547(c)(2) (2012).

We have

reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties’
briefs and find no reversible error.
the

reasoning

of

the

courts

Accordingly, we affirm on

below.

Sparkman

v.

American

Residential Servs., LLC, Nos. 5:13-cv-00346-D; 09-02062-8-SWH;
09-02071-8-SWH;

11-00213-8-SWH

(E.D.N.C.

Mar. 28, 2013; Dec. 30, 2013).

filed

May

25,

2012;

We 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

2