Clearwater Trust v. Wyche, Burgess

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1687
CLEARWATER TRUST, a trust for the benefit of Russell B. Lentz,
Jr. and Mitzi L. Lentz with Donna Schuford as trustee; THE
ELISABETH T. LENTZ TRUST, with Marydine Lentz Lamb as trustee;
RUSSELL B. LENTZ, JR. and MITZI L. LENTZ, individually and as
owners and beneficiaries of the Clearwater Trust and as
beneficiaries of the Elisabeth T. Lentz Trust, the Russell B.
Lentz Trust, a trust for the benefit of Elisabeth T. Lentz,
and the estate of Elisabeth R. Lentz,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WYCHE, BURGESS, FREEMAN & PARHAM, PA; MARSHALL WINN; WALLACE K.
LIGHTSEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cv-01854-GRA)
Submitted: August 8, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Veach, III, FALLS & VEACH, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellants. Thomas W. Traxler, S. Brook Fowler, CARTER, SMITH,
MERRIAM, ROGERS & TRAXLER, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ legal
malpractice action. On appeal, Plaintiffs contend the district
court misapplied the facts and the law in concluding they waited
more than three years to commence this action after discovery; in
not determining that a jury could reasonably conclude the lawsuit
was timely filed; and in not finding that Defendants were estopped
from asserting the statute of limitations. We affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208,
213 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 955 (2008). Summary
judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
“[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence
favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for
that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not
significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
3
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the
parties’ briefs and the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Clearwater Trust v. Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham,
PA, No. 6:06-cv-01854-GRA (D.S.C. June 20, 2007). 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
4