Calvert Jeremy v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 15-2369 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2369 CALVERT LLEWELLYN JEREMY; JOLITA MERVINA JEREMY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-01632-TDC; 13-29597; 14-00310) Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: March 9, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Douglas Burns, THE BURNS LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. H. Jason Gold, Valerie P. Morrison, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washinton, D.C.; Joseph M. Lischwe, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Calvert Llewellyn Jeremy and Jolita Mervina Jeremy (the Appellants) filed a Chapter 13 petition in November 2013. They filed the underlying adversary proceeding seeking a declaration that would allow them to bifurcate the mortgage on their primary residence into a secured claim up to the appraised value and an unsecured claim on the remaining balance (i.e., a “cram-down”). The Appellants argued that, because their deed of trust provides for supplemental insurance collateral proceeds, and in rent, the these form of escrow interests are funds, not “real property” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) (2012). The bankruptcy Bank’s motion court to disagreed dismiss. and The granted district JP court Morgan Chase certified the appeal to this court. In light of our decision in Birmingham v. PNC Bank, N.A., 846 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2017), we affirm the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the complaint. In Birmingham, we held that the “reference proceeds, in the or Deed of Trust miscellaneous to escrow funds, proceeds . . . insurance constitute[s] incidental property,” and not additional collateral, within the meaning of § 1322(b)(2). we affirm the Based on our reasoning in Birmingham, bankruptcy Appellants’ complaint. court’s order dismissing the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 2 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
