Robert Yoe v. Branch Banking & Trust Company, No. 14-1275 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1275 ROBERT B. YOE; PAUL MICHAEL YOE; GLENDA STUART; JEANNINE SHOUP; JOY MAYNARD; JEFFREY S. YOE; JAMES D. YOE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BRANCH BANKING corporation, AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00173-GMG) Submitted: October 30, 2014 Decided: November 12, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard W. Weston, WESTON LAW OFFICE, Huntington, West for Appellants. William L. Hallam, Andrew H. Baida, MARTIN GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; David A. Ryan J. Aaron, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West for Appellee. Virginia, ROSENBERG Barnette, Virginia, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert B. Yoe, Paul Michael Yoe, Glenda Stuart, Jeannine Shoup, Joy Maynard, Jeffrey S. Yoe, and James D. Yoe, (collectively “Beneficiaries”) sued Branch Banking and Trust Company (“BB&T”) alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and a claim of common law fraud, regarding BB&T’s role in assisting Robert executor of the estate for Harry W. Yoe. S. Hill, Jr., the Beneficiaries appeal the district court’s order granting BB&T’s motion to dismiss raising a single issue: whether the district court erred by dismissing Plaintiffs’ state common law fraud claim as timebarred. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the materials submitted on appeal, and the district court’s order, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Yoe v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., No. 3:13-cv-00173-GMG (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 25, 2014). We dispense with oral legal contentions are before this and argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials court argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2