Robert Yoe v. Branch Banking & Trust Company

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00173-GMG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999473010]. [14-1275]

Appeal: 14-1275

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1275

ROBERT B. YOE; PAUL MICHAEL YOE; GLENDA STUART; JEANNINE
SHOUP; JOY MAYNARD; JEFFREY S. YOE; JAMES D. YOE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BRANCH
BANKING
corporation,

AND

TRUST

COMPANY,

a

North

Carolina

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00173-GMG)

Submitted:

October 30, 2014

Decided:

November 12, 2014

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard W. Weston, WESTON LAW OFFICE, Huntington, West
for Appellants.
William L. Hallam, Andrew H. Baida,
MARTIN GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; David A.
Ryan J. Aaron, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West
for Appellee.

Virginia,
ROSENBERG
Barnette,
Virginia,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1275

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert

B.

Yoe,

Paul

Michael

Yoe,

Glenda

Stuart,

Jeannine Shoup, Joy Maynard, Jeffrey S. Yoe, and James D. Yoe,
(collectively

“Beneficiaries”)

sued

Branch

Banking

and

Trust

Company (“BB&T”) alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and a claim of common law fraud,
regarding

BB&T’s

role

in

assisting

Robert

executor of the estate for Harry W. Yoe.

S.

Hill,

Jr.,

the

Beneficiaries appeal

the district court’s order granting BB&T’s motion to dismiss
raising

a

single

issue:

whether

the

district

court

erred

by

dismissing Plaintiffs’ state common law fraud claim as timebarred.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the materials

submitted on appeal, and the district court’s order, and find no
reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Yoe v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., No.

3:13-cv-00173-GMG (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 25, 2014).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2