HANCOCK BANK v. SYVERSON et al
| HANCOCK BANK |
| THOMAS R SYVERSON and PATRICIA A JONES |
| 3:2013cv00622 |
| December 9, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Florida |
| Pensacola Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| M CASEY RODGERS |
| ELIZABETH M TIMOTHY |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
80
ORDER adopting the chief magistrate judge's 79 Amended Report and Recommendation. (2.) Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor's 76 Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED and Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor's Motion for F inal Judgment and related objections (docs. 72 , 72 , 73 ) are deemed WITHDRAWN. (3.) Defendants/Judgment Debtors' requests for hearing (docs. 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ) are DENIED AS MOOT. (4.) The writs of garnishment issued as to Garnishees Bank of America, Regions Bank, and Wells Fargo (docs. 26 , 27 , 32 , 33 , 51 , 52 ) are DISSOLVED. (5.) Garnishees SunTrust and Coastal Bank and Trust are DISCHARGED from further liability under the writs of garnishment i ssued as to them (docs. 38 , 39 , 44 , 45 ). (6.) The clerk of court is directed to refund to Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor the deposits for the writs of garnishment issued to Garnishees Bank of America, Coastal Bank and Trust, and SunTrust Bank (see docs. 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 49 ), for a total amount of $500.00. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 4/23/2015. (djb)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
