Summary
recognizing that the borrowers' fraud-based argument that their note was securitized after the trust's closing date was reserved for the "allegedly defrauded certificate-holders"
Summary of this case from Stanworth v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Stanworth)Opinion
No. 12-1423
08-23-2012
KATHLEEN BLICK; HAROLD BLICK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As "Trustee" for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As "Trustee" for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Defendants - Appellees.
Kathleen Blick, Harold Blick, Appellants Pro Se. Jason Cameron Hicks, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00001-NKM-BWC) Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathleen Blick, Harold Blick, Appellants Pro Se. Jason Cameron Hicks, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Kathleen and Harold Blick appeal the district court's order granting Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their action to quiet title in real property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court's rejection of their claim that Defendants lacked standing to foreclose on the property. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Blick v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:12-cv-00001-NKM-BWC (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2012). Turning to the Blicks' remaining claims, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellants' brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the Blicks fail to challenge the court's resolution of these claims, they have forfeited appellate review of those issues. We therefore affirm the court's denial of relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED