Case Name: In re Herbert B. PARKS, Debtor. Garson L. Rice, Sr., Individually and for and on behalf of R & P Ventures, a General Partnership or Joint Venture, and for and on behalf of Byron Commercial Investments, Incorporated; Byron Commercial Investments, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Herbert B. Parks, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-09
Citations: 1 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 99-2678
Parties: In re Herbert B. PARKS, Debtor. Garson L. Rice, Sr., Individually and for and on behalf of R & P Ventures, a General Partnership or Joint Venture, and for and on behalf of Byron Commercial Investments, Incorporated; Byron Commercial Investments, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Herbert B. Parks, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 1
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
In re Herbert B. PARKS, Debtor. Garson L. Rice, Sr., Individually and for and on behalf of R & P Ventures, a General Partnership or Joint Venture, and for and on behalf of Byron Commercial Investments, Incorporated; Byron Commercial Investments, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Herbert B. Parks, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 99-2678.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 4, 2000.
Decided Jan. 9, 2001.
Rory D. Whelehan, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Greenville, SC, for appellants. Gerald Allen Pell, Pell & Pell, L.L.P., Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
ON BRIEF: Ralph W. Gorrell, Pell & Pell, L.L.P., Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and GARWOOD, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Having considered the briefs, appendix and argument of counsel, we conclude that the District Court did not err in affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court. The latter court's determination that the settlement agreement between the Trustee and Parks — approved by the bankruptcy court, the validity of which is not open to challenge in this proceeding — intended to exempt the entire property itself, is not clearly erroneous, and it does not appear that the settlement agreement unambiguously provided otherwise.
AFFIRMED.