Huntington National Bank v. Dignity Senior Living, LLC
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:21-cv-02055
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 10
In Huntington National Bank v. Dignity Senior Living, Judge Wright granted in part and denied in part default judgment, entering a $98,499.63 judgment and dismissing other claims without prejudice.
Huntington National Bank received a judgment against Dignity Senior Living, LLC, and Albert Chen for $98,499.63 plus post-judgment interest. Huntington’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs was denied, and its other claims were dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Huntington National Bank v. Dignity Senior Living, LLC, Huntington sought judgment because Dignity Senior Living, LLC, and Albert Chen did not respond to the lawsuit. Huntington alleged that Dignity failed to make payments under a financing agreement and that Chen failed to pay under his guaranty. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as admitted, except for the amount of damages.
The court found that Huntington had shown valid breach-of-contract claims against both defendants. It determined that Huntington was entitled to $98,499.63 in damages, including overdue payments, future payments, a contract penalty, and late fees. The court did not award the requested attorneys’ fees and costs because Huntington did not provide supporting billing records, but it awarded post-judgment interest under federal law.
Judge Wright granted in part and denied in part Huntington’s motion for default judgment, granted judgment on Counts I and II, dismissed Counts III through VI without prejudice, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment against both defendants for $98,499.63 plus post-judgment interest.
The detailed version
- Huntington National Bank v. Dignity Senior Living, LLC · No. 0:21-cv-02055
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Huntington National Bank, the successor by merger to TCF National Bank, sued Dignity Senior Living, LLC, and Albert Chen for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that TCF entered into an Installment Payment Agreement with Dignity to finance $97,291.12 for software and equipment. Dignity was required to make 48 monthly payments of $2,258.03. The agreement allowed the creditor to recover certain fees, costs, and expenses after default.
The agreement was supported by a continuing guaranty from Chen. The guaranty made Chen absolutely responsible for Dignity’s obligations and for costs and expenses related to enforcing the guaranty. Huntington alleged that Dignity missed a payment due in July 2021, received default notices in August and September 2021, and did not cure the default. Huntington served both defendants, but neither appeared or responded. The Clerk entered default against both defendants on December 28, 2021.
Default Judgment and Contract Claims
A default judgment requires an entry of default followed by a court order granting judgment. Although default means the complaint’s factual allegations are generally treated as admitted, the court must still determine whether those facts establish a valid legal claim and must independently determine damages.
Applying Minnesota law, the court found that Huntington’s allegations established a breach-of-contract claim against Dignity. The allegations showed formation of the financing agreement, Dignity’s default, and Huntington’s right to enforce the agreement. The court also found that the allegations established a breach-of-contract claim against Chen based on the guaranty and Dignity’s default.
The court granted Huntington’s motion for default judgment as to Counts I and II. The opinion describes the complaint’s other claims as unjust enrichment, promissory or equitable estoppel, and claims involving delivery of collateral and priority liens. At the default-judgment hearing, Huntington agreed to judgment only on the breach-of-contract claim and dismissal of its remaining claims. The court dismissed Counts III, IV, V, and VI without prejudice.
Damages
The court determined that Huntington proved actual damages to a reasonable degree of certainty as follows:
- $22,580.30 for ten overdue monthly payments; - $71,223.17 for the present value of 34 future or accelerated payments, discounted at the agreement’s 5.4 percent implicit interest rate; - $3,561.16 for the agreement’s five-percent default penalty; and - $1,135 in late fees.
The court denied the requested $120 for returned automated clearinghouse payment fees because Huntington supplied no receipt or other supporting documentation. The resulting actual-damages award was $98,499.63.
Attorneys’ Fees and Post-Judgment Interest
Huntington requested $9,167.20 in attorneys’ fees and expenses under the financing agreement. The court denied that request because Huntington did not provide billing records, identify the attorneys who worked on the case, provide their hourly rates or experience, or state the hours worked. The court also awarded post-judgment interest at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), beginning when judgment was entered.
Disposition
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted in part and denied in part Huntington’s motion for default judgment. The court granted the motion as to Counts I and II, dismissed Counts III through VI without prejudice, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment against Dignity Senior Living, LLC, and Albert Chen in favor of Huntington for $98,499.63 plus post-judgment interest.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.