You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Herlan v. Timberline Four Seasons Resort, Inc.

Citation: 441 F. App'x 167Docket: No. 10-1675

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; August 1, 2011; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's directive for Pat J. Herían to turn over vacation home rental contracts to Timberline Four Seasons Resort, Inc. was upheld. The appellate review of the record and briefs revealed no errors in the lower court's decision. The case cited is In re Pat Herlan, Nos. 2:10-cv-00016-JPB; 2:09-bk-02665 (N.D.W.Va. May 17, 2010). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials. The decision is affirmed. Unpublished opinions like this one are not binding precedent in the circuit.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review Standards

Application: The appellate court reviewed the record and briefs and found no errors, affirming the lower court's decision without the need for oral argument.

Reasoning: The appellate review of the record and briefs revealed no errors in the lower court's decision. Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials.

Bankruptcy Court Authority

Application: The bankruptcy court's authority to direct turnover of assets is affirmed as the appellate court found no error in the lower court's decision.

Reasoning: The district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's directive for Pat J. Herían to turn over vacation home rental contracts to Timberline Four Seasons Resort, Inc. was upheld.

Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinions

Application: The decision in this case is based on an unpublished opinion, which is noted as not being binding precedent in the circuit.

Reasoning: Unpublished opinions like this one are not binding precedent in the circuit.