HANCOCK BANK v. BOYD et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall submit calculations of the current balances of the outstanding indebtedness with principal, accrued interest, and daily accrued interest rate. The clerk will then enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants in that amount. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 2/28/2012. (jcw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
HANCOCK BANK, a
Mississippi banking corporation,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.

CASE NO. 5:11-cv-339-RS-EMT

JAMES A. BOYD, SR.,
NANCY G. BOYD,
JAMES A. BOYD, JR.,
CECELIA R. BOYD,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
Before me are Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. 25)
and Defendants’ Response (Doc. 30).
Standard of Review
The basic issue before the court on a motion for summary judgment is
“whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a
jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986).
The moving party has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to
any material fact, and in deciding whether the movant has met this burden, the
court must view the movant’s evidence and all factual inferences arising from it in
1

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398
U.S. 144 (1970); Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993).
Thus, if reasonable minds could differ on the inferences arising from undisputed
facts, then a court should deny summary judgment. Miranda v. B & B Cash
Grocery Store, Inc., 975 F.2d 1518, 1534 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Mercantile Bank
& Trust v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 750 F.2d 838, 841 (11th Cir. 1985)). However,
a mere ‘scintilla’ of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's position will not
suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for
that party. Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251).
II. BACKGROUND
Boyd Brothers, Inc. (“Boyd Brothers”) borrowed money from People’s First
Community Bank (“People’s First”) on several occasions. Defendants personally
guaranteed repayment of the Boyd Brothers loans. Plaintiff inherited these debts
when it acquired the assets and assumed certain liabilities of People’s First from
the FDIC on December 18, 2009.
Boyd Brothers took out six different loans over a fifteen year period. (Doc.
25). Boyd Brothers defaulted on these loans. In another case (“the Consolidated
Action”), Plaintiff obtained a final judgment against Defendants on five of the

2

loans.1 This case involves the remaining loan, which involved a promissory note
in the initial principal amount of $2,650,000.00 that Boyd Brothers executed and
delivered to People’s First on January 16, 2007. This loan was set to mature on
August 18, 2018, pursuant to subsequent renewals of the initial note. Boyd
Brothers defaulted on the loan in November 2010, and Plaintiff has exercised its
contractual right to accelerate the outstanding principal balance. Plaintiffs seek
damages, pre-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees and costs resulting from
Defendant’s breach of their guaranty agreement.
Analysis
Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because
Defendants’ affirmative defenses are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In the
Eleventh Circuit, a claim is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata where: (1)
there is a prior final judgment on the merits; (2) the decision was rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in privity with them, are
identical in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action is involved in both cases.
In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001). “A final
judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from
relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Federated
Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981) (emphasis added). “Under

1

The case number of the Consolidated Action is 5:11-cv-94-RS-CJK.
3

res judicata ‘the effect of a judgment extends to the litigation of all issues relevant
to the same claim between the same parties, whether or not raised at trial.’ ”
Olmstead v. Amoco Oil Co., 725 F.2d 627, 632 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Kaspar
Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Engineering & Machinery, 575 F.2d 530, 535 (5th Cir.
1978)). “The bar extends not only to the precise legal theory presented in the
previous litigation, but to all legal theories and claims arising out of the same
‘operative nucleus of fact.’ ” Id. (citing Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F.2d 1261(1st Cir.
1974)).
In the Consolidated Action, final judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff
on January 5, 2012. (5:11-cv-94, Doc. 94). It is undisputed that this Court had
competent jurisdiction and that the parties in the suits are identical. I have already
considered and rejected three of Defendants’ affirmative defenses—(1) there was
no meeting of the minds, (2) Hancock Bank failed to mitigate its damages, and (3)
Hancock violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act—in the Consolidated Action.
Therefore, these defenses are barred by res judicata.
Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ other two affirmative
defenses are barred by res judicata because of the Order dismissing Defendants’
counterclaims for fraudulent inducement and the breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. (Doc. 22). Defendants’ remaining affirmative
defenses are that Defendants executed the guaranty agreement under coercion and

4

duress because Plaintiff wrongfully withheld their assets and that this misconduct
constitutes a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Because “a dismissal with prejudice [constitutes] a final judgment on the
merits,” the Order dismissing Defendants’ counterclaims meets the first prong for
res judicata. Bradford v. Bronner, 665 F.2d 680, 682 (5th Cir. 1982). Again, it is
undisputed that this Court had competent jurisdiction and that the parties in the
suits are identical. Lastly, Defendants are alleging similar claims for the same
misconduct on the part of Plaintiff. “[L]egal theories and claims arising out of the
same ‘operative nucleus of fact’ ” are barred by res judicata. Olmstead, 725 F.2d
at 632 (citing Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F.2d 1261(1st Cir. 1974)).
Because all of Defendants’ affirmative defenses are barred by the doctrine of
res judicata and no other evidence is offered to dispute any claims, there is no
genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted.
Conclusion
It is ORDERED:
1. The Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff shall submit calculations of the current balances of the outstanding
indebtedness with principal, accrued interest, and daily accrued interest rate.
The clerk will then enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants in
that amount.

5

ORDERED on February 28, 2012.
/s/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6