Rita Cheche v. Wittstat Title & Escrow Company, No. 12-1310 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1310 RITA CHECHE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WITTSTAT TITLE & ESCROW COMPANY, LLC; WACHOVIA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, BANK Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00577-MSD-TEM) Submitted: September 21, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rita Cheche, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Roger Hildebeidel, MORRIS HARDWICK SCHNEIDER, PLLC, Dulles, Virginia; Andrew Kelly Rudiger, Hunter Wilmer Sims, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rita Cheche appeals the district court s ruling granting judgment in favor of Wittstat Title & Escrow Company, LLC, and Wachovia Bank National Association ( Wachovia ) after a bench trial in her civil action seeking rescission of a credit transaction and damages under the Truth in Lending Act, U.S.C.A. ยงยง 1601-1667f (West 2009 & Supp. 2012) ( TILA ). 15 We affirm. We review a judgment following a bench trial under a mixed standard of review. Factual findings may be reversed only if clearly erroneous, while conclusions of law are examined de novo. Roanoke Cement Co. v. Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433 (4th Cir. 2005). [W]hen a district court s factual finding in a bench trial is based upon assessments of witness credibility, such finding is deserving of the highest degree of appellate deference. 531 F.3d 302, Evergreen 308 Int l, (4th Cir. S.A. 2008) v. Norfolk (internal Dredging quotation Co., marks omitted). Having reviewed the parties informal briefs and the record before us, we perceive no basis on which to overturn the district court s judgment. findings premised on We defer to the district court s credibility determinations that Cheche entered into a valid credit transaction and did not cancel that transaction within the three-day period for doing so provided by 2 the TILA. Cheche s We also appellate reject as arguments unexplained challenging and the without district merit court s judgment on the basis of fraud, overcharging, withholding of evidence, the timing of the funding of the credit transaction, the lack of clear title, errors in the closing documentation, incompleteness of documents provided by Wachovia, and the conduct of employees for the entity from whom Cheche obtained a mortgage loan. Further, insofar as Cheche challenges the effectiveness of her trial counsel, allegations of ineffective assistance by counsel in a civil action are not sufficient to raise a valid claim for relief on appeal and entitle Cheche to Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. no relief. 1988); Sanchez v. (5th Cir. 1986) meritless Cheche s U.S. (per Postal remaining 785 Finally, curiam). Serv., we arguments for F.2d reject 1236, as 1237 wholly overturning the district court s judgment. Accordingly, pauperis we and the We dispense affirm with oral grant leave judgment argument to proceed in of the district because the facts forma court. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
