Filed: Jul. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING WAKEFIELD KENNEDY'S [291] MOTION DAVID NUFFER, District Judge. A Prior Order granted summary judgment 1 in favor of Wakefield Kennedy, LLC's (Wakefield) on Wakefield's 5th cause of action, for breach of contract against Metro National Settlement Services, LLC (Metro). Metro had possession of collateral documents to secure a loan from Wakefield to Silverleaf Financial 9, LLC (SLF9) under a Custody Agreement. Metro agreed not to release the documents until
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING WAKEFIELD KENNEDY'S [291] MOTION DAVID NUFFER, District Judge. A Prior Order granted summary judgment 1 in favor of Wakefield Kennedy, LLC's (Wakefield) on Wakefield's 5th cause of action, for breach of contract against Metro National Settlement Services, LLC (Metro). Metro had possession of collateral documents to secure a loan from Wakefield to Silverleaf Financial 9, LLC (SLF9) under a Custody Agreement. Metro agreed not to release the documents until ..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING WAKEFIELD KENNEDY'S [291] MOTION
DAVID NUFFER, District Judge.
A Prior Order granted summary judgment1 in favor of Wakefield Kennedy, LLC's (Wakefield) on Wakefield's 5th cause of action, for breach of contract against Metro National Settlement Services, LLC (Metro). Metro had possession of collateral documents to secure a loan from Wakefield to Silverleaf Financial 9, LLC (SLF9) under a Custody Agreement. Metro agreed not to release the documents until a loan from Wakefield to SLF9 was paid. But Metro released the documents to a third party and released funds it had on deposit to SLF9. The prior order determined Metro breached the Custody Agreement.
But the Prior Order did not determine the amount of the judgment to be entered because Wakefield did not move for summary judgment as to damages.2 Wakefield was ordered to file a motion for determination of damages, so that judgment may be entered, and thereafter file a bill of costs and motion to determine attorneys' fees.
The motion was filed,3 and there are only two pertinent facts. Both are actually beyond dispute. One fact was in the Prior Order. "On January 5, 2011, Madison VanTreese wired $1,091,125.00 from Metro Settlement's escrow account to SLF9."4 The second fact recites the amount due to Wakefield on January 1, 2011. This statement is based on facts found in a previous order.5
As of January 1, 2011, the amount due and owing on the Wakefield — SLF 9 Loan was $1,190,132.50; $1,150,000 in principal, $25,757.46 in the deferred balance from a previous loan to SLF23 that was also secured by the Woodlawn Mall Note, and $14,375 in unpaid interest.6
Metro contests this fact, stating (1) the amount includes a balance on a prior loan (which was rolled into this loan) and (2) the Custody Agreement between Metro and Wakefield does not mention interest.
That the amount due from SLF9 to Wakefield includes the prior deferred balance from a loan to a related entity was the subject of a prior order.7 Metro was a participating party at the time that order was entered. The obligation from SLF9 to Wakefield on this loan is adjudicated. It is beyond dispute. The second issue is not material. Metro's liability is based on its breach of the Custody Agreement.8 Metro is liable for the amount Wakefield would have received on the SLF9 obligation had Metro fulfilled the Custody Agreement. Metro is not satisfying its direct financial obligation, but is paying damages for breach of the Custody Agreement. Those damages are properly measured by the amount due Wakefield on January 1, 2011, which would have satisfied the SLF9-Wakefield obligation. The amount which Metro let slip through its hands is only part of that obligation and not enough to satisfy Wakefield. Metro was to hold the documents in its custody until the entire SLF9 obligation to Wakefield was satisfied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment shall be entered against Metro and in favor of Wakefield in the amount of $1,190,132.50, with an award of prejudgment interest on that amount at the federal rate from January 1, 2011 until paid.