Case Name: Betty B. MURCHISON, Individually And As Personal Representative of The Estate of John P. Murchison, Jr., Deceased, Appellant v. INTER-CITY MORTGAGE CORPORATION PROFIT SHARING AND PENSION PLANS, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-16
Citations: 401 F. App'x 561
Docket Number: No. 09-7057
Parties: Betty B. MURCHISON, Individually And As Personal Representative of The Estate of John P. Murchison, Jr., Deceased, Appellant v. INTER-CITY MORTGAGE CORPORATION PROFIT SHARING AND PENSION PLANS, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before: TATEL and GARLAND, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 561–562

Head Matter:
Betty B. MURCHISON, Individually And As Personal Representative of The Estate of John P. Murchison, Jr., Deceased, Appellant v. INTER-CITY MORTGAGE CORPORATION PROFIT SHARING AND PENSION PLANS, et al., Appellees.
No. 09-7057.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Nov. 16, 2010.
Bardyl Rifat Tirana, Esquire, Law Office of Bardyl R. Tirana, South Nyack, NY, for Appellant.
Before: TATEL and GARLAND, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was considered on the record and on the briefs of counsel. The court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be vacated in part.
The district court erred in requiring appellant Betty Murchison, as personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband, John Murchison, Jr., to pay damages to the Inter-City Mortgage Corporation Profit Sharing Plan. No claim on behalf of the Plan was pending against the estate when the district court entered its judgment ordering payment. Although George and Jewel Murchison did initially bring counterclaims against John Murchison's estate, those claims were not pursued and were no longer part of the case when this court issued a limited remand to the district court after a prior appeal. See Murchison v. Murchison, 180 Fed.Appx. 163 (D.C.Cir.2006). No party asked the district court for the relief it ordered, and no party defends that relief on appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court in so far as it holds the appellant liable to the Plan for $786,365.16.
The Clerk is directed to withhold the issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41(a)(1).