                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                     _______________________

                           No. 96-11366
                     _______________________


  NATIONAL HOUSING EXCHANGE, INC, a North Carolina Corporation,

                                                         Plaintiff,

        DAVID J KRUPP, arf National Housing Exchange, Inc,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

    NATIONAL HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation,
                         Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee

                              versus

ARAPAHO CAR WASH, A Texas General Partnership; THOMAS H STEWART;
                         DAVID M WARREN,

                     Defendants - Counter Claimants - Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                          Dallas Division
_________________________________________________________________

                          August 8, 1997
Before JONES, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM:*

          David R. Krupp, receiver for National Housing Exchange,

later replaced by National Heritage Life Insurance Company (“NHL”),


    *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
brought this suit against Arapaho Car Wash Thomas H. Stewart, and

David   M.    Warren     (collectively,    “Arapaho”)   to     collect    on   a

promissory note.       The district court granted summary judgment for

NHL and subsequently denied Arapaho’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

Agreement.     Arapaho argues that there was insufficient summary

judgment evidence to establish the chain of title giving NHL

ownership of the note and guarantees.         Arapaho also challenges the

district court’s       conclusion   that   the   parties     did   not   have a

settlement agreement in writing, signed and filed with the court as

required by Texas law.       After hearing oral argument, reviewing the

briefs, the authorities cited therein and the record, we find no

reversible error of fact or law.          Thus, we AFFIRM the judgment of

the district court.

             AFFIRMED.
