Byron F. David v. Summit Community Bank, No. 22-1181 (4th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1181 BYRON F. DAVID, Debtor - Appellant, v. SUMMIT COMMUNITY BANK, Plaintiff - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00721-RDA-JFA) Submitted: October 17, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2023 Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: James P. Campbell, Matthew W. Clark, CAMPBELL FLANNERY, P.C., Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Quinton B. Callahan, CLARK & BRADSHAW, P.C., Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Byron F. David appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision to allow Summit Community Bank’s Claim 4-3 against David’s bankruptcy estate. David argues that the bankruptcy court erred by admitting into evidence a copy of the signed guarantee underlying Claim 4-3, and that Summit spoliated evidence by failing to retain the original guarantee. “In reviewing the judgment of a district court sitting in review of a bankruptcy court, we apply the same standard of review that was applied by the district court.” Copley v. United States, 959 F.3d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 2020). Thus, “we review the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and any discretionary decisions for abuse of discretion.” Id. With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. And we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.