Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Cathy Lanier, No. 14-1459 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1459 BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER, Defendants - Appellants, and TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-01318-JFA) Submitted: October 22, 2014 Decided: October 29, 2014 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cathy G. Lanier; Randy D. Lanier, Appellants Pro Se. Barry Licata, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Steven Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randy and Cathy Lanier (collectively, the Laniers ) appeal the district court s judgment in favor of Branch Banking & Trust Company ( BB&T Co. ) and its order denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. First, jurisdiction district parties the over court and, Laniers BB&T Co. s correctly § 1332(a) (2012). challenge the action. We found therefore, We affirm. complete had district conclude under that the among diversity jurisdiction court s the 28 U.S.C. See United States ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 348 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review); Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co., 739 F.3d 163, 170-71 (4th Cir. 2014) (discussing corporations). diversity Next, the jurisdiction Laniers suggest with that regard the to district court judge displayed bias towards them, but the record does not support their claim. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011) (providing standard). Finally, after a careful review of the record, we hold that the district court properly rejected the Laniers various attempts to show that the promissory note and the mortgages obligating them to BB&T Co. were invalid or unenforceable and to challenge the amount of damages awarded by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and its order denying reconsideration. 2 We dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal contentions are before this and court 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.