James Cockhren v. H. Terpstra, II, No. 15-1033 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Smith, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Truth in Lending. Dismissal of complaint against an attorney under Truth in Lending Act, state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and state law claim for loss of consortium, is summarily affirmed. [ August 20, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1033 ___________________________ James Arthur Cockhren; Margaret Louise Cockhren lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. H. Raymond Terpstra, II lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: August 18, 2015 Filed: August 21, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Cockhren and Margaret Cockhren appeal the district court’s1 dismissal of their pro se complaint against an attorney. In their complaint, they asserted claims 1 The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. under the Truth in Lending Act, a state-law claim for breach of fiduciary duties, and a state-law claim for loss of consortium. After careful de novo review, see Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that the complaint failed to state a claim, see 15 U.S.C. § 1602(g) (defining “creditor” under Truth in Lending Act); Shivvers v. Hertz Farm Mgmt., Inc., 595 N.W.2d 476, 479 (Iowa 1999) (discussing attorney’s duty of care); Huber v. Hovey, 501 N.W.2d 53, 57 (Iowa 1993) (discussing loss-of-consortium claim under Iowa law); see also Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir. 2013) (court of appeals may affirm on any basis supported by record). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
