JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget et al

Filing 567

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT (Doc. 557). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.

Case No. 08-13845
HON. AVERN COHN

LARRY WINGET and the LARRY WINGET
LIVING TRUST,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
___________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT (Doc. 557)1
I. Introduction
This is a commercial finance dispute which has been litigated for many years.
Most recently, following a decision in favor of plaintiff, the case was remanded from the
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for winding up. Three motions are now before the
Court:
Defendants’ Motion to Judicially Estop Chase from Seeking Damages under
Count I That Exceed $50 Million (Doc. 556)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Amended Final Judgment (Doc. 557)
and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and Expenses of Collection (Doc. 563)
The first two motions are fully briefed. This memorandum addresses only
Plaintiff’s motion for entry of an amended final judgment. Defendants’ motion regarding
judicial estoppel is related and has been disposed of by separate order entered this
1

Upon review of the parties’ papers, the Court deems this matter appropriate for
decision without argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).

date.
For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter
an Amended Final Judgment in a form consistent with Exhibit A to plaintiff’s motion.
II. Background
On January 29, 2014, the Court entered the Final Judgment as to All Claims of
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) and as to
Counterclaim of Defendants/Counterplaintiffs Larry J. Winget (Winget) and the Larry J.
Winget Living Trust (the Winget Trust) (Doc. 487), finding that all outstanding issues
between the parties had been resolved. See Doc. 487, Final Judgment and Doc. 470,
Amended Memorandum and Order Granting Chase’s Motion for Entry of Final
Judgment. Appeals by the parties were taken from that Final Judgment. The Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the Court’s decision on reformation and
remanded “to the district court with instructions to enter judgment as to Count I of
Chase’s complaint in favor of Chase, consistent with the holding of [its] opinion.”
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 602 F. App’x 246, 266 (6th Cir. 2015).
The Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment “in all other respects.” Id. at 2.
On June 18, 2015, the Sixth Circuit issued its mandate after which Chase filed the
instant motion seeking an amended final judgment in the form attached as Exhibit A to
the motion.
III. Discussion
In entering final judgment in this case, the Court held that “all outstanding issues
between the parties had been resolved” and “entry of final judgment is appropriate
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(2)(B).” (Doc. 470 at 3.) The Court further explained that
2

“[t]he text of the judgment to be entered in favor of Chase should conform to Chase’s
remedies under the Guaranty and the Pledges that were the subject of Chase’s
complaint and Winget’s counterclaim.” Id. at 5.
The final judgment must now be amended now to conform with the Sixth Circuit’s
decision which held that the “equitable remedy of reformation was not available.” 602 F.
App’x at 258. Chase’s proposed form of amended final judgment, attached as Exhibit A
to its motion, revises the Court’s Final Judgment to omit reference to reformation of the
contract and provides that Chase’s recourse against the Winget Trust for collection and
payment of amounts owed, including principal and interest, under the Credit Agreement
dated May 27, 1999, as amended is not limited by Section 3 of the Guaranty.
Winget and the Winget Trust’s objections to entry of an amended final judgment
mirror the arguments made in their motion for judicial estoppel (Doc. 556). They
contend that Chase should be judicially estopped from being able to collect on a
judgment that exceeds $50 million as to Winget and the Winget Trust. The Court has
disposed of this motion by separate order entered this date. For the reasons stated in
the Court’s order denying Chase’s motion, Winget and the Winget Trust’s arguments do
not carry the day.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 28, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

3