Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Whitehawk Plantation, L.L.C. et al

Filing 22

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/31/2011. (jg, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WHITEHAWK PLANTATION,
L.L.C.; and MULLINS
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:10cv947-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
This lawsuit is now before the court on plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s motion for summary judgment
against

defendants

Whitehawk

Mullins Services, LLC.
Whitehawk

and

Plantation,

L.L.C.

and

Wells Fargo seeks to recover from

Mullins

Services

(1)

the

sum

of

$ 2,080,465.66 and (2) post-judgment interest on this
amount calculated at the statutory rate.

Rule 56(c)(2)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
summary

judgment

is

appropriate

where

“there

is

no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Whitehawk and Mullins Services have failed to oppose
Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment.

Thus, the

undisputed evidence before the court is as follows.
Wells Fargo is the successor by merger to Wachovia Bank,
N.A.

Wachovia loaned monies to Whitehawk under two non-

revolving lines of credit; to Mullins Services under two
non-revolving lines of credit; and to former co-defendant
Charles F. Mullins, Jr. under one non-revolving line of
credit.
Whitehawk,

There

were

Mullins

therefore

Services,

five
and

loans

Mullins

in

all.

executed

promissory notes in favor of Wachovia to evidence their
various obligations under these lines of credit. Further,
Mullins personally and unconditionally guaranteed the
obligations of Whitehawk and Mullins Services under their
lines of credit.
After Whitehawk and Mullins Services defaulted on
their

loan

extension

obligations,
and

the

modification

parties

entered

agreement.

into

Under

an

this

agreement, the loans were modified such that Whitehawk,

2

Mullins

Services,

and

Mullins

became

jointly

and

severally liable for the obligations on all five loans.
Whitehawk and Mullins Services failed to pay all
amounts due and defaulted on all five loans.

As a result

of the defaults, Whitehawk and Mullins Services now owe
Wells Fargo $ 2,080,465.66 as of April 15, 2011.

This

figure is comprised of the amounts owed under each of the
five loans; interest accrued on the loans as of April 15;
late fees associated with the loans; and Wells Fargo’s
attorneys’

fees

as

well

as

court

costs

incurred

collection of the amounts owed under the loans.

in

With

respect to Well Fargo’s attorneys’ fees, which total
$ 33,560.60, the court notes that Whitehawk and Mullins
Services have not challenged the reasonableness of the
fees, and, after assessing the fees themselves, the court
finds no basis to question their reasonableness.
addition,

Whitehawk

and

Mullins

judgment interest.

3

Services

owe

In

post-

Wells Fargo is entitled to collect $ 2,080,465.66 as
well as post-judgment interest.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 31st day of May, 2011.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE