Deramus v. Resolution Trust Corp. (RTC)
Opinion
We affirm the judgment for the following reasons:
1. The district court’s grant of summary judgment did not deny Dora-mus due process. Oglesby v. Terminal Transport Co., 543 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1976).
2. Doramus has not presented a triable issue on her claims regarding violations of zoning laws and restrictive covenants, because her lack of standing to pursue those claims has been preclusively determined in a previous suit. See Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387, 391 (5th Cir. 1998).
3. Doramus has not made any showing that defendants made a false statement to her with knowledge of the statement’s falsity or ignorance of its truth, and thus has not presented a triable claim of fraud under Mississippi law. See Gamble v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 852 So.2d 5, 10 (Miss. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Jody H. DERAMUS, Plaintiff-Aappellant, v. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION (RTC); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); Commonwealth Title Insurance Company; Chicago Title Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees
- Status
- Unpublished