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, )

Download PDF
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?