Hoyt, et al v. American Home, et al

Filing 57

ORDER reviving, effective November 17, 2008, the 40 12/15/98 Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $143,333.04. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 2/20/09. (mkf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

TODD HOYT, et al. v. No. 4:97CV00882 JLH PLAINTIFFS

AMERICAN HOME ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES, LTD., a/k/a ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES, a/k/a AMERICAN ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES AND PETER H. NORMAN

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The record of the Court shows that on December 15, 1998, jUdgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants in American Home Alliance Industries, Ltd. a/k/a Alliance Industries, a/k/a American Alliance Industries and Peter H. Norman, jointly and severally, for damages and prejudgment interest in the amount of $52476.74 for Todd and Amy Hoyt, $63,363.26 for Hubert and Margie Hoyt, and $2,193.04 for David and Heather Drilling; plus costs in the amount of $300 and attorney's fees in the amount of $25,000 with post-judgment interest to accrue at the rate of 4.2% per annum. No satisfaction of this judgment has been entered. On or about November 17, 2008 and within ten years of the jUdgment, the Clerk of the Court issued a Writ of Scire Facias, indicating a jUdgment in the amount of $143,333.04 was entered against the defendants on December 15, 1998, and if defendants failed to appear and show cause why such jUdgment shall not be revived, the judgment shall be revived and the lien continued for another ten (10) years and so on for the time as often as may be necessary. Despite plaintiffs' diligent inquiry, the defendants could not be found. Therefore, the plaintiffs posted the Court's Order to Show Cause, as directed, at the door of the

Pulaski County Courthouse for four (4) weeks. The Clerk of the Court also posted a copy of the order at a public place in the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse for four (4) consecutive weeks. Because the defendants have failed to appear and show cause why the judgment should not be revived, the Court orders the judgment be revived effective November 12, 2008, the date on which the plaintiffs filed their motion. IT IS SO ORDERED this

'~y of February 2009.

J. ON HOLMES U ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE