UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1479

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RAMZI MAALOUF; LAURICE MAALOUF; RITA MAALOUF,

Defendants – Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. William Connelly, Magistrate Judge. 

(8:07-cv-01645-WGC)

Submitted: April 16, 2010 Decided: April 29, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard S. O’Connor, SHURE, PEREZ AND O’CONNOR, Rockville, 

Maryland; Joseph J. D’Erasmo, JOSEPH J. D’ERASMO & ASSOCIATES, 

LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellants. Matthew P. Previn, 

BUCKLEYSANDLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ramzi Maalouf appeals the district court’s judgment1

finding him jointly and severally liable for debts incurred when 

his wife, Rita Maalouf, wrote checks on a home equity line of 

credit (HELOC) through Chase Home Finance.2

We review the district court’s findings of fact under 

the clearly erroneous standard of review, construing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the Appellee. Ente 

Nazionale Per L’Energia Electtrica v. Baliwag Navigation, Inc., 

774 F.2d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1985). Under this deferential 

standard of review, this court will not overturn a district

 He challenges the 

district court’s factual determination that he benefitted from 

funds received from Chase Home Finance; that he had an 

appreciation or knowledge of the benefit; and that he accepted 

or retained the benefit under such circumstances as to make it 

inequitable for him to retain the benefit without the payment of 

its value.

 1 The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a 

magistrate judge, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

2 Although named as a party to the appeal, Laurice Maalouf 

is not a proper appellant because the district court found in 

her favor. See Suarez Corp. Indus. v. McGraw, 125 F.3d 222, 228 

(4th Cir. 1997). Any claims on the part of Rita Maalouf are 

waived because they are not addressed in the appellants’ brief. 

See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th 

Cir. 1999).
3

court’s finding of fact “simply because [we] would have decided 

the case differently.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 

(2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, this court 

will only overturn a lower court’s finding of fact as clearly 

erroneous when “‘on the entire evidence,’” this court is “‘left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.’” Easley, 532 U.S. at 242 (quoting United States v. 

United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).

We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude 

that Ramzi Maalouf has not made the requisite showing. As the 

district court concluded, Ramzi was a beneficiary of the funds 

drawn on the HELOC by his wife, and the evidence supported a 

determination that he knew the funds were drawn from the HELOC, 

and not from some other source. On these facts, we find no 

clear error in the district court’s holding that Ramzi was 

unjustly enriched, and that he was jointly and severally liable 

for the disputed funds. See County Comm’rs of Carolina County 

v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc., 747 A.2d 600, 607 n.7 (Md. 

2000). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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