Highland Construction v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01503-LMB-IDD,11-11413-KHK,15-01030-KHK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000186264].. [17-1429]

Appeal: 17-1429

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1429

HIGHLAND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP; JOSEPH L.
BANE, JR.,
Debtors - Appellants,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., for the benefit of Jerome Guyant IRA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01503-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: October 26, 2017

Decided: November 3, 2017

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Campbell, CAMPBELL FLANNERY P.C., Leesburg, Virginia; Christopher L.
Rogan, ROGANMILLERZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellants.
Neil D. Goldman, GOLDMAN & VAN BEEK P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1429

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Highland Construction Management Services, LP, appeals from the district court’s
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment to Wells Fargo
Bank, f/b/o James Guyant IRA, on Highland’s complaint seeking “recharacterization” of
a prior transaction between the parties.

The bankruptcy court properly found that,

because the nature and character of the transaction was ligated in prior state court
proceedings between the same parties, Highland’s claim was barred by res judicata. See
Va. Sup. Ct. R. 1:6(a). We have reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the parties’
briefs, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Highland Constr. Mgmt. Servs., LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.
1:16-cv-01503-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2017). 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