Wells Fargo Bank v. Max Keith Norman Residential Design, Inc. et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2)
Filing
22
CONSENT JUDGMENT: ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: 1. The joint motion for entry of consent judgment and order (doc. no. 21 ) is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and against defendants Ma x Keith Norman Residential Design, Inc., Max Keith Norman, and Hope M. Norman, jointly and severally, in the amount of $122,838.51. 3. Defendants' counterclaim (doc. nos. 10 , 15 ) is dismissed with prejudice. 4. The costs of this actio n are taxed as paid. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This case is closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/7/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (kh, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WELLS FARGO BANK, National )
Association,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MAX KEITH NORMAN
)
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN, INC., )
MAX KEITH NORMAN, and HOPE )
M. NORMAN,
)
)
Defendants.
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv736-MHT
(WO)
CONSENT JUDGMENT
This cause is before the court on the “Joint Motion
for Entry of Consent Judgment and Order” (doc. no. 21)
filed
by
plaintiff
Wells
Fargo
Bank,
National
Association ("Wells Fargo") and defendants Max Keith
Norman Residential Design, Inc. ("MKN"), and Max Keith
Norman and Hope M. Norman (collectively, the "Normans,"
and
together
with
MKN,
"Defendants").
Upon
due
consideration of the parties' filings and the pleadings
in this action, the court finds that the motion should
be granted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED
as follows:
Findings of Fact
1.
In
monetary
2008
loans
and
to
2009,
MKN,
Wells
which
Fargo
were
made
certain
unconditionally
guaranteed by the Normans.
2.
Pursuant
to
the
loan
documents,
Wells
Fargo
agreed to loan MKN certain sums of money in exchange
for Defendants' promise to make payments to Wells Fargo
in return.
3.
Defendants
failed
to
repay
Wells
Fargo
as
agreed under the loan documents.
4.
Accordingly,
on
April
3,
2015,
Wells
Fargo
demanded payment of all amounts due by Defendants under
the loan documents.
5.
Despite
Wells
Fargo's
demand
for
payment,
Defendants failed to repay Wells Fargo any amounts due
under the loan documents.
6.
Accordingly,
Wells
Fargo
filed
a
complaint
(doc. no. 1) with this court on October 6, 2015 seeking
2
recovery of $116,057.22, together with and including,
without limitation, all attorneys' fees and court costs
incurred by Wells Fargo in enforcing its rights under
the loan documents.
7.
Defendants
filed
an
answer
and
counterclaim
(doc. no. 10) on October 29, 2015, which was amended on
November 24, 2015 (docs. no. 15).
8.
Defendants consent to entry of judgment against
them for $122,838.511, with interest to run on said
judgment at the applicable post-judgment rate.
Relief
Based on the above findings of fact, the record in
this
case,
requested
by
and
Defendants'
the
plaintiff,
consent
it
is
to
the
further
relief
ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
1.
and
The joint motion for entry of consent judgment
order
(doc.
no.
21)
is
granted.
1.
This amount is greater than the amount sought
in the complaint due to accruing interest.
3
2.
Fargo
Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Wells
Bank,
National
Association,
and
against
defendants Max Keith Norman Residential Design, Inc.,
Max
Keith
Norman,
and
Hope
M.
Norman,
jointly
and
severally, in the amount of $122,838.51.
3.
Defendants' counterclaim (doc. nos. 10, 15) is
dismissed with prejudice.
4.
The costs of this action are taxed as paid.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this
document
on
the
civil
pursuant
to
Rule
58
of
docket
the
as
a
Federal
final
Rules
judgment
of
Civil
Procedure.
This case is closed.
DONE, this the 7th day of November, 2016.
/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?