Lillian Woody v. Bank of America Corporation, No. 10-1775 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1775 LILLIAN WOODY; FRED WOODY, JR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK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. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Lillian and Fred Woody ( Appellants ) appeal the district court s orders dismissing their statutory and common law claims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 claim motion to that join the district additional court parties. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. of Am. Corp., No. 5:09-cv-00938-D (E.D.N.C., erred We in have Woody v. Bank June 9, 2010). Finally, Appellants claim that the court erred in denying their 3 motion for a new trial. Again, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Bank of Am. Corp., No. We affirm on that basis. 5:09-cv-00938-D Woody v. (E.D.N.C., 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 adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
