Hancock Bank v. Pastore
1:18-cv-00179
| S.D. Ala. | Sep 17, 2018Background
- Hancock Bank sued Alexander Pastore, Tricia M. Pastore, and Amicus Mortgage Group, Inc. to collect unpaid balances on two commercial loans secured by mortgages on Alabama real property. Plaintiff is Louisiana-based; defendants and Amicus are Alabama citizens/corporation. Plaintiff invoked diversity jurisdiction.
- Loan 1 (May 17, 2010): $265,000 mortgage on 6341 Piccadilly Square Drive; foreclosure sale held Feb 19, 2018; sale proceeds left a claimed balance of $13,137.52 as of June 29, 2018.
- Loan 2 (Jan 17, 2013): $596,940.55 promissory note cross‑collateralized by mortgages on 6341 Piccadilly and 14185 Dauphin Island Pkwy; foreclosure sale for the Dauphin Island property held Mar 30, 2018; sale proceeds left a claimed balance of $153,695.09 as of Mar 30, 2018.
- Plaintiff requested default judgment after defendants failed to answer; the Clerk entered default and Plaintiff moved for default judgment seeking damages, prejudgment and post‑judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
- The magistrate judge found the complaint pled a prima facie basis for relief, awarded principal, fees, costs and prejudgment/postjudgment interest, and held the attorneys’ fees request in abeyance pending supplementation under Alabama’s Peebles factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction/service | Service was effected on defendants in Mobile County; defendants are Alabama residents; Court has jurisdiction | No responsive pleading (default); no contest of service in record | Service was proper; defendants amenable to jurisdiction and were served |
| Entitlement to default judgment | Well‑pleaded facts show loans, mortgage security, default, foreclosure sales, application of proceeds, and remaining balances | Defaulting defendants submitted no opposition | Default judgment appropriate as to general damages and interest; complaint states prima facie case |
| Amount of damages and prejudgment interest | Seeks specified unpaid balances after foreclosure credits and prejudgment interest as allowed by contract/Alabama law | No challenge in record | Magistrate recommended judgment of $180,661.96 (breakdown provided) and awarded prejudgment interest of $15,480.34 as of report date; postjudgment interest at federal rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 |
| Attorneys’ fees | Mortgages provide for reasonable attorneys’ fees; Plaintiff submitted fee amount incurred | No opposition but court must assess reasonableness | Attorneys’ fees claim held in abeyance; Plaintiff ordered to supplement under Peebles v. Miley factors for reasonableness review |
Key Cases Cited
- Pardazi v. Cullman Med. Ctr., 896 F.2d 1313 (11th Cir.) (service of process is a jurisdictional requirement)
- Prewitt Enters., Inc. v. OPEC, 353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir.) (distinguishes amenability to jurisdiction from service of process)
- Tyco Fire & Sec., LLC v. Alcocer, [citation="218 F. App'x 860"] (11th Cir.) (default admits well‑pleaded facts but not legal conclusions; court must confirm sufficiency)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir.) (court must ensure factual basis supports default judgment damages)
- Anheuser‑Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.) (obligation to assure legitimate basis for damage awards in default judgments)
- Peebles v. Miley, 439 So. 2d 137 (Ala.) (factors for determining reasonable contractual attorneys’ fees)
- Lanier v. Moore‑Handley, Inc., 575 So. 2d 83 (Ala.) (discusses application of Peebles criteria)