Whitney Bank v. Payne Lee & Associates Architects, LLC, et al. (JOINT ASSIGN)

Filing 46

ORDER directing as follows: (1) Plaintiff Whitney Bank's Motion for Adjudication on Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as to Non-Bankrupt Defendant and Counterclaim (Doc. # 42 ) is GRANTED; (2) Defendant Payne Lee & Associates Ar chitect LLC's Objection (Doc. # 38 ) is OVERRULED; (3) The Recommendation (Doc. # 37 ) is partially ADOPTED; (4) Defendant David H. Payne's Counterclaim is DISMISSED with prejudice; (5) Plaintiff Whitney Bank's Motion for Summary Jud gment is GRANTED as to Defendant Payne Lee & Associates; (6) The stay remains in full force and effect as to Plaintiff's claims against debtor-Defendants Mark E. Lee and David H. Payne; and (7) The Recommendation (Doc. # 37 ) and Objection (Doc. # 38 ) remain pending as to debtor-Defendants Mark E. Lee and David H. Payne. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on June 4, 2015. (scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
WHITNEY BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAYNE LEE & ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-969-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
In accordance with this court’s prior Order lifting the stay as to the nondebtor Defendant, Payne Lee & Associates Architects, LLC, and the counterclaim
of debtor Defendant David H. Payne, Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Adjudication
on Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as to Non-Bankrupt Defendant
and Counterclaim (Doc. # 42) will now be addressed. On February 10, 2015, the
Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case. (Doc. # 37.) On February
23, 2015, Defendants filed an Objection (Doc. # 38), in which they allege that the
Magistrate Judge failed to consider the equitable arguments Defendants raised in
their brief opposing Plaintiff Whitney Bank’s motion for summary judgment.
Upon an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Whitney

Bank’s motion (Doc. # 42) is due to be granted, the Objection is due to be partially
overruled, and the Recommendation is due to be partially adopted.
In their Objection to the Recommendation, Defendants argue that the
Magistrate Judge failed “to consider the equitable arguments as cited in [their]
brief.” (Doc. # 38, at 1.) Defendants raised equitable arguments in their brief in
opposition to Whitney Bank’s motion for summary judgment and they further
assert that equitable considerations mandate that Whitney Bank not be allowed to
retain monies unjustly earned on a loan never drawn upon. These arguments,
however, do not call into question the soundness of the Magistrate Judge’s legal
conclusions as they are based upon actions taken by Whitney Bank with regard to a
promissory note that is not the subject of this action.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff Whitney Bank’s Motion for Adjudication on Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation as to Non-Bankrupt Defendant and
Counterclaim (Doc. # 42) is GRANTED;
2.

Defendant Payne Lee & Associates Architect, LLC’s Objection (Doc.

# 38) is OVERRULED;
3.

the Recommendation (Doc. # 37) is partially ADOPTED;

4.

Defendant David H. Payne’s Counterclaim is DISMISSED with

prejudice;
2

5.

Plaintiff Whitney Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

GRANTED as to Defendant Payne Lee & Associates;
6.

the stay remains in full force and effect as to Plaintiff’s claims against

debtor-Defendants Mark E. Lee and David H. Payne; and
7.

the Recommendation (Doc. # 37) and Objection (Doc. # 38) remain

pending as to debtor-Defendants Mark E. Lee and David H. Payne.
DONE this 4th day of June, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3