Woody et al v. FSG Bank (Knoxville) et al, No. 3:2009cv00418 - Document 31 (E.D. Tenn. 2012)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT, entered by the Clerk, against Counter-Defendant Bernard Woody in the aggregate amount of $828,850.00 for the deficiency balances due, as of August 11, 2009, on the two separate notes at issue in the counterclaim ($427,925.00 owed on the promissory note that was executed on September 30, 2005; $400,925.00 owed on the second promissory note that was executed on November 1, 2005), plus any interest accrued as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 until the judgment is paid in full. The court orders the clerk to close the case. Signed by District Judge Tena Campbell on May 21, 2012. (AYB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Woody et al v. FSG Bank (Knoxville) et al Doc. 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE BERNARD WOODY, et al., Plaintiffs, FINAL JUDGMENT vs. FSGBANK N.A., TELLICO LANDING, LLC, and RARITY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:09-cv-418 Defendants. On May 17, 2012, the court granted Counter-Claimant FSG Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Counter-Defendant Bernard Woody in the above-captioned matter. Based on the affidavit of Debora Armstrong that was submitted with FSG Bank’s motion (Dkt. No. 18-1), it is now ORDERED that final judgment be entered against Mr. Woody in the aggregate amount of $828,850.00 for the deficiency balances due, as of August 11, 2009, on the two separate notes at issue in the counterclaim ($427,925.00 owed on the promissory note that was executed on September 30, 2005; $400,925.00 owed on the second promissory note that was executed on November 1, 2005), plus any interest accrued as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 until the judgment is paid in full. The court orders the clerk to close the case. Dockets.Justia.com SO ORDERED this 21st day of May, 2012. BY THE COURT: ENTERED AS A JUDGMENT s/ Debra C. Poplin CLERK OF COURT ______________________________ TENA CAMPBELL United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
