Cases 1 - 10 of 16
BBT v. Hamilton Greens, LLC, et al
as 16-15590
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, successor-in-interest to Colonial Bank by Asset Acquisition from the FDIC as Receiver for Colonial Bank, N.A.
Defendant - Appellee:
RICHARD P. BELLINGER, individually and MAUREEN DONNELLY
:
CHAD LABONTE, individually, HAMILTON GREENS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, DEVCON LIVINGSTON GREENS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and others
BBT v. Hamilton Greens, LLC, et al
as 16-15186
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, successor-in-interest to Colonial Bank by Asset Acquisition from the FDIC as Receiver for Colonial Bank, N.A.
Defendant - Appellee:
MAUREEN DONNELLY and RICHARD P. BELLINGER, Individually
:
HAMILTON GREENS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company
Sentinel Capital Orlando, LLC v. Centennial Bank
as 15-14904
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SENTINEL CAPITAL ORLANDO, LLC
Defendant - Appellee:
CENTENNIAL BANK, as successor-in-interest to Old Southern Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC as Receiver for Old Southern Bank
Branch Banking and Trust Comp v. EBR Investments LLC, et al
as 15-13308
Plaintiff - Appellee-Cross Appellant:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, as successor-in-interest to Colonial Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC as Receiver for Colonial Bank
Defendant - Appellant-Cross Appellee:
STEWART DUDLEY, EBR INVESTMENTS LLC and SRD ASSURANCE CORPORATION
Branch Banking and Trust Comp v. EBR Investments LLC, et al
as 15-13309
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, as successor-in-interest to Colonial Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC as Receiver for Colonial Bank
Defendant - Appellee:
EBR INVESTMENTS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability company, STEWART DUDLEY, individually and SRD ASSURANCE CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation
Branch Banking and Trust Compa v. Betty Rogers
as 15-12675
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, successor in interest to Colonial Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC as receiver for Colonial Bank
Defendant - Appellant:
BETTY ROGERS, an individual
Branch Banking and Trust Compa v. Betty Rogers
as 15-10529
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, successor in interest to Colonial Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC as receiver for Colonial Bank
Defendant - Appellant:
BETTY ROGERS
Branch Banking & Trust v. S&S Development, Inc., et al
as 14-13914
Plaintiff / Appellee:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, as successor-in-interest to Colonial Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC as Receiver for Colonial Bank, successor by merger to Citrus and Chemical Bank
Defendant / Appellant:
S&S DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida corporation, BRIAN K. SWAIN, individually and DONALD K. STEPHENS, individually
Branch Banking and Trust Compa v. S&S Development, Inc., et al
as 14-12880
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, as successor-in-interest to Colonial Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC as Receiver for Colonial Bank, successor by merger to Citrus and Chemical Bank
Defendant - Appellant:
S&S DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida Corporation and BRIAN K. SWAIN
Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. S&S Development, Inc., et al
as 14-12879
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina banking corporation, as successor-in-interest to Colonial Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC as Receiver for Colonial Bank, successor by merger to Citrus and Chemical Bank
Defendant - Appellant:
DONALD K. STEPHENS, S&S DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida corporation and BRIAN K. SWAIN, individually
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
