Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Hollon Construction, LLC et al (JOINT ASSIGN)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) plf Branch Banking and Trust Company's 16 renewed MOTION for Default Judgment as to Hollon Construction Company, LLC is denied with leave to renew; (2) if plf Branch Banking and Trust Company renew its motion, then it must provide the following: (a) An itemized statement of the calculation of the outstanding principal owed on each of the disputed promissory notes, as further set out; (b) A detailed breakdown of the interest calcul ations as to both notes, as further set out; (c) A statement of how the late charges are calculated, as further set out; (d) An itemized bill for any attorneys fees sought; (e) Documentation of any court costs or fees incurred, as further set out; ( f) an affidavit to the effect that def Hollon Construction, LLC is neither an infant nor incompetent; (g) An affidavit, as further set out; (h) finally, if plf wishes that the court award to it any amounts not mentioned above, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/28/15. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
BRANCH BANKING and TRUST
COMPANY, successor in
interest to Colonial Bank
by Asset Acquisition From
the FDIC as Receiver for
HOLLON CONSTRUCTION, LLC;
ROBERT ALEXANDER HOLLON;
and ROBERT LORAIN HOLLON,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB&T)
(successor in interest to Colonial Bank) brings suit
Alexander Hollon, and Robert Lorain Hollon to collect
amounts owed to BB&T on two promissory notes upon which
the defendants allegedly defaulted.
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity).
case is now before the court on BB&T’s renewed motion
for default judgment against only Hollon Construction.
For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied with
leave to renew.
“A court has an obligation to assure that there is
a legitimate basis for any damage award it enters ....”
Anheuser Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266
(11th Cir. 2003).
“[J]udgment of default awarding cash
damages [may] not properly be entered without a hearing
unless the amount claimed is a liquidated sum or one
capable of mathematical calculation.
Damages may be
basis for award via a hearing or a demonstration by
detailed affidavits establishing the necessary facts.”
Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism & the Klan,
quotations and citations omitted).
As to the first promissory note, BB&T provided the
court with a copy of the note.
The promissory note and
the complaint both state that the principal amount is
The note states that the initial interest
rate is 7.250 % per annum, and that the rate increases
to 18% per annum if the note goes into default.
also provided the court with a demand letter, dated
July 15, 2013, which its counsel sent to the defendants
alleging that the interest “through 7-10” (which the
court takes to mean July 10, 2013), was $ 6,842.70, and
that the late charges were $ 324.57.
However, BB&T has
not provided any more information than that.
does not know the date of default.
The court does not
know whether more late charges have been or will be
current amount of interest owed, and the court does not
provided a copy of that note.
The second promissory
original principal amount on this note is $ 92,969.47.
6.5 % per annum, but the rate increases to 18 % per
letter, however, as to the current principal amount as
of the filing of the complaint.
The complaint itself
(filed September 23, 2014) states that the outstanding
principal is $ 57,465.07.
The demand letter dated July
outstanding principal is $ 87,465.07.
The court needs
clarification as to the current outstanding principal.
The demand letter states that the interest owed on this
amount “through 7-10” is $ 16,155.52, and that the late
charges are $ 577.53.
Here again, the court has no
more information than that.
the date of default.
The court does not know
Though the complaint states that
the second note “matured on August 25, 2010 and HC
failed to pay the note upon demand”, the complaint does
not state whether that is the date of default.
court does not know whether more late charges have been
or will be added.
BB&T has not shown any calculation
of the current amount of interest owed, and the court
does not know the date from which to calculate postdefault interest.
BB&T has provided a copy of the receipt for the
filing fee in this case, which is sufficient evidence
as to that portion of the requested judgment.
Finally, BB&T has not provided any documentation of
any kind as to attorneys’ fees.
In fact, it has not
amounts of $ 50,000.00 and $ 57,465.07 and asks for a
judgment “in the principal amount of $ 107,465.07, plus
However, the complaint provides no more detail
as to the amounts it is actually requesting, other than
application for entry of default, filed December 22,
filed January 27, 2015, do not update the court or
The court requires more documentation
than has been provided.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
renewed motion for default judgment as to Hollon
Construction Company, LLC (doc. no. 16) is denied
with leave to renew.
(a) An itemized statement of the calculation of the
specifically the amounts of any payments that
the defendants have made on them up until the
time of plaintiff’s filing of the new renewed
payments were made.
calculations as to both notes.
must include any relevant dates, such as when
the interest amounts are compounded and added
to the principal (if indeed they are).
interest is owed as of the time that plaintiff
files the new renewed motion.
plaintiff files the new renewed motion.
incurred, even though it has already provided
the receipt for the court filing fee.
Hollon Construction, LLC is neither an infant
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
(g) An affidavit “(A) stating whether or not the
defendant is in military service and showing
necessary facts to support the affidavit; or
(B) if the plaintiff is unable to determine
whether or not the defendant is in military
service, stating that the plaintiff is unable
to determine whether or not the defendant is in
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 App. U.S.C.
§ 521(a) & (b).
award to it any amounts not mentioned above, it
DONE, this the 28th day of September, 2015.
___/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?