GMAC v. Morris Horne, No. 08-1848 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1848 GMAC, Plaintiff - Appellant, and CITIFINANCIAL AUTO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MORRIS DWAYNE HORNE; AARON LA VIGNE; AMANDA LA VIGNE, Defendants Appellees, and AMY LILLIAN TAYLOR, Defendant. No. 08-1850 GMAC; CITIFINANCIAL AUTO CORPORATION, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. MORRIS DWAYNE HORNE; AARON LA VIGNE; AMANDA LA VIGNE, Defendants Appellants, and AMY LILLIAN TAYLOR, Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00515-REP) Submitted: August 20, 2010 Decided: September 1, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine M. Sutcliffe Becker, Barkley Clark, STINSON, MORRISON & HECKER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for GMAC. James Michael Flaherty, BOLEMAN LAW FIRM, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Clifton Leffler, BOLEMAN LAW FIRM, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Morris Dwayne Horne, Aaron La Vigne, and Amanda La Vigne. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, the parties appeal from the district court s order affirming in part and reversing in part the bankruptcy courts orders finding that a portion of GMAC s claims unsecured. 618 (4th in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings are In light of our decision in In re Price, 562 F.3d Cir. 2009) (holding debtor s negative equity in a trade-in vehicle included in amount financed created a purchase money obligation within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2006), we summarily affirm the portion of the district court s order at issue in No. 08-1850. Because the parties have settled the remaining issues by filing an amended plan in the bankruptcy court, we dismiss No. 08-1848 as moot. Accordingly, we deny GMAC s motion to retain jurisdiction. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.