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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?