Case Name: 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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Betty Rogers, an individual, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-01
Citations: 646 F. App'x 890
Docket Number: No. 15-12675
Parties: 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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Betty Rogers, an individual, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 890–891

Head Matter:
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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Betty Rogers, an individual, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-12675
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 1, 2016.
David S. Garbett, Garbett Allen & Roza, B. Elizabeth Interthal, Jonathan H. Kask-el, Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephen J. Biggie, Mauricio Arcadier, Arcadier & Associates, PA, Melbourne, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Betty Rogers appeals the district court's denial of her motion to add an affirmative defense and grant of Branch Banking and Trust Company's motion for summary judgment. We need not consider these challenges, however, as this Court dismissed them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We also limited review on appeal to the deficiency judgment entered against Rogers on June 5, 2015. Rogers' fails to discuss the deficiency judgment in either her opening or reply brief, and thus she has waived any arguments pertaining to it. See Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir.2012) (discussing the well-settled principle that a party abandons an issue "by failing to list or otherwise state it as an issue on appeal"). Accordingly, we affirm the deficiency judgment.
AFFIRMED.