Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Centennial Bank, Successor In Interest To Coastal Community Bank v. Piney Point Preserve

December 8, 2011

CENTENNIAL BANK, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO COASTAL COMMUNITY BANK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PINEY POINT PRESERVE, LLC; WILLIAM J. RISH, JR.; TERRA PAR MER, LLC; RALPH RISH, AND RANDALL MCELHENEY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Smoak United States District Judge

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Case 5:11-cv-51, Doc. 49).

I. 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 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

I accept the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Galvez v. Bruce, 552 F.3d 1238, 1239 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1343 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002)). " 'All reasonable doubts about the facts should be resolved in favor of the non-movant.' " Id. (quoting Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175, 1187 (11th Cir. 1999); Clemons v. Dougherty County, 684 F.2d 1365, 1368-69 (11th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff filed this suit alleging breach of two different promissory notes and for holding the respective guarantors jointly and severally liable. On September 30, 2009, Defendant Piney Point Preserve, LLC ("Piney Point") executed and delivers the first promissory note to Coastal Community Bank. In consideration for the loan, Defendants William J. Rish, Jr., Ralph Rish, and Randall McElheney executed and delivered personal guaranties to Plaintiff to repay the obligation owed in the note in the amounts stated in the guaranties. Terra Par Mer, LLC executed and delivered a personal guaranty to Plaintiff to repay fifteen percent of the obligation owed in the note.

On December 31, 2009, Defendant Piney Point executed and delivered a promissory note to Coastal Community Bank modifying the original note, under which additional monies were loaned and some of the terms of the original Note were changed. In consideration for the loan, Defendants William J. Rish, Jr., Ralph Rish, and Randall McElheney executed and delivered personal guaranties to Plaintiff to repay the obligation owed in the modified note in the amounts stated in the guaranties. Subsequent to the execution of the modified note by Defendant, Coastal Community Bank and Defendant Piney Point entered into a note modification agreement where the terms of the agreement were modified.

Centennial Bank ("Centennial"), an Arkansas banking corporation, is the successor in interest to Coastal Community Bank by asset acquisition from the FDIC. Defendants defaulted under the modified notes by failing to pay the entire balance owed by the maturation date, which was May 15, 2010. Plaintiff contends that Defendants Piney Point, William Rish, Jr., Ralph Rish, and Randall McElheny, jointly and severally, owe Plaintiff the principal sum of $100,000.00. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Terra Par Mer, LLC, owes Plaintiff the principal sum of $7,800.00. All Defendants owe interest of $6,670.11 through October 6, 2011, with an interest per diem thereafter of $11.81. (Case 5:11-cv-51, Doc. 50).

The second promissory note in question was executed and delivered to Coastal Community Bank by Defendant Piney Point on October 29, 2007. In consideration for the loan, Defendants William J. Rish, Jr., Ralph Rish, and Randall McElheney executed and delivered personal guaranties to Plaintiff to repay the obligation owed in the note. Terra Par Mer, LLC executed and delivered a personal guaranty to Plaintiff to repay a portion of the obligation owed in the note.

Subsequent to the execution of the note, Coastal Community Bank and Piney Point entered into two separate note modification agreements under which the terms and conditions of the note were modified. On March 31, 2011, Plaintiff advanced $66,833.49 for the payment of ad valorem property taxes, and this amount was added to the principal balance.

Centennial then became the successor in interest to Coastal Community Bank. Defendants defaulted under the modified notes by failing to pay the entire balance owed by the maturation date, which was also May 15, 2010. Plaintiff contends that Defendants Piney Point, William Rish, Jr., Ralph Rish, and Randall McElheny, jointly and severally, owe Plaintiff the principal sum of $1,771,833.49. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Terra Par Mer, LLC, owes Plaintiff the principal sum of $306,000.00. All Defendants owe interest of $114,880.24 through October 6, 2011 and late charges of $2,728.13, with an interest per diem thereafter of $209.17. (Case 5:11-cv-51, Doc. 50).

Plaintiff now brings this motion for summary judgment as to all counts of the amended complaint, including pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.