Thomas Fluharty v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 15-1439 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1439 THOMAS H. FLUHARTY, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of D. Kevin Coleman and Diane M. Coleman; D. KEVIN COLEMAN; DIANE M. COLEMAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC.; TITLE SOURCE, INC.; M&T BANK, Successor by Assignment and Sub-Servicing Agreement to Defendant Bank of America, N.A., Defendants – Appellees, and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. ------------------------WEST VIRGINIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; COMMUNITY BANKERS OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., Amici Supporting Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cv-00068-FPS-JES) Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: November 13, 2015 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin P. Sheehan, SHEEHAN & NUGENT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellants. John C. Lynch, Jason Manning, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Joseph M. Ward, GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Floyd E. Boone, Jr., Sandra M. Murphy, Stuart A. McMillan, James E. Scott, BOWLES RICE, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Amici Supporting Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Thomas H. Fluharty, the trustee in an underlying bankruptcy proceeding, dismissing Residential appeals his from claims the brought Mortgage Lender, district pursuant Broker court’s to and the orders: West Servicer (1) Virginia Act, (2) denying his motion to certify a question to the West Virginia Supreme Court, and (3) granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on his claim that the mortgage contracts at issue were unenforceable as unconscionable under West Virginia law. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fluharty v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-00068-FPS-JES (N.D. W. Va. Nov. 7, 2013; Feb. 19, 2014; Apr. 6, 2015). oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before We dispense with contentions this court are 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.