The Huntington National Bank v. Lighthart Enterprises LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedMarch 27, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-01406
StatusUnknown

This text of The Huntington National Bank v. Lighthart Enterprises LLC (The Huntington National Bank v. Lighthart Enterprises LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Huntington National Bank v. Lighthart Enterprises LLC, (E.D. Wis. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 22-CV-1406-JPS Plaintiff, v.

LIGHTHART ENTERPRISES LLC, ORDER LIGHTHART HVAC INC., DANIEL LIGHTHART, LAUREN LIGHTHART, D.R. KOHLMAN, INC., and MARY JO NEUMANN, Defendants.

Plaintiff The Huntington National Bank (“Plaintiff”) is a national banking association. ECF No. 1 at 1. Defendants Lighthart Enterprises LLC and Lighthart HVAC Inc. (the “Lighthart Defendants”) are Wisconsin companies with principal places of business at 1117 Church Street, Saint Cloud, Wisconsin 53079 (the “Property”). Id. Defendants Lauren Lighthart and Daniel Lighthart (the “Individual Lightharts”) were named in this action “solely to foreclose any interest in the subject real estate”; Plaintiff “is not seeking a money judgment” against them. Id. at 1–2. Defendant D.R. Kohlman, Inc. (“D.R. Kohlman”) is a Wisconsin corporation, which was named in this action because it is named in the December 31, 2020 mortgage (discussed further infra), though its interests, if any, “are subordinate and inferior to the lien and interest of Plaintiff.” Id. at 2. Defendant Mary Jo Neumann (“Neumann”) is an individual domiciled in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, who was named in this action “solely to foreclose any interest in the subject real estate” due to a pending judgment in her favor against Defendant Lighthart HVAC, Inc.; her interest, if any, is “subordinate and inferior to the lien and interest of Plaintiff.” Id. On December 31, 2020, Plaintiff made a loan to the Lighthart Defendants, which loan was evidenced by a December 31, 2020 note. Id. at 3. The note was secured by a December 31, 2020 mortgage against the Property, as well as by a December 31, 2020 security agreement granting Plaintiff a lien on certain personal property of the Lighthart Defendants. Id. On December 31, 2020, Plaintiff made a second loan to Defendant Lighthart HVAC Inc., which loan was increased on March 10, 2021 and secured by a March 10, 2021 note. Id. at 3–4. The March 10, 2021 note was secured by a security agreement from Defendant Lighthart HVAC Inc. in favor of Plaintiff, dated December 31, 2020. Id. at 4. The Lighthart Defendants allowed default to occur under the notes, mortgage, and security agreements. Id. This action followed. On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action for (1) foreclosure of mortgage, (2) breach of the first note, (3) breach of the second note, and (4) replevin. Id. at 4–9. Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s (1) motion to appoint Matthew Brash of Newpoint Advisors Corporation as receiver for real and personal property of the Lighthart Defendants (the “Receiver Motion”), and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the Individual Lightharts (the “Dismissal Motion”). ECF Nos. 18, 19.1 The Lighthart Defendants and D.R. Kohlman do not

1Plaintiff has also filed a motion for judgment of foreclosure, ECF No. 17, which the Court addresses by separately entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Order, and Judgment.

Page 2 of 8 oppose, and are in agreement with, the Receiver Motion. ECF No. 19 at 1. No party has filed an opposition to the Dismissal Motion. Neumann was personally served with the summons and complaint on December 8, 2022, ECF No. 16 at 2, and never responded. Neumann is not “a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought” within the purview of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55; she was named in this case solely because of her judgment against Defendant Lighthart HVAC, Inc. Service of the summons and complaint provided her with the ability to appear and protect her interest; she has not. Moreover, the time allotted by the Local Rules to respond to the Receiver Motion and the Dismissal Motion has passed. Civ. L.R. 7(b). For all of those reasons, the Court determines that Neumann has waived her opportunity to oppose the Receiver Motion and the Dismissal Motion. Upon consideration of both the unopposed Receiver Motion and Dismissal Motion, the Court will grant them. As to the Receiver Motion, Plaintiff explains that, in addition to the Lighthart Defendants stipulating to the appointment of a receiver, the mortgage and security agreement grant Plaintiff the right to the appointment of a receiver. ECF No. 19 at 3. “Federal courts have an inherent equitable power to appoint a receiver to manage a defendant's assets during the pendency of litigation.” Matter of McGaughey, 24 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 66. “[T]he primary consideration in determining whether to appoint a receiver is the necessity to protect, conserve and administer property pending final disposition of a suit.” McGaughey, 24 F.3d at 907. To the extent Wisconsin law steps in to gap fill, see Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Riverdale Bank, No. 92 C 1332, 1992 WL

Page 3 of 8 73539, at *6 n. 1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 1992), Wis. Stat. § 813.16 provides that “A receiver may be appointed . . . when the applying party establishes an apparent right to or interest in property which is the subject of the action and which is in the possession of an adverse party, and the property or its rents and profits are in danger of being lost of materially impaired.” The Court finds the considerations of federal common law and Wisconsin law met here. As to the Dismissal Motion, in light of all parties’ agreement and/or non-opposition, and because the Individual Lightharts have not served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the motion will be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s agreed and/or unopposed motion to appoint Matthew Brash of Newpoint Advisors Corporation as receiver for real and personal property of Defendants Lighthart Enterprises LLC and Lighthart HVAC Inc., ECF No. 19, be and the same is hereby GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s agreed and/or unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendants Lauren Lighthart and Daniel Lighthart, ECF No. 18, be and the same is hereby GRANTED; Defendants Lauren Lighthart and Daniel Lighthart be and the same are hereby DISMISSED from this action; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. Matthew Brash of Newpoint Advisors Corporation, not personally but solely as court appointed receiver (the “Receiver”), is qualified to act as Receiver in this action, and to take possession, custody, and control of: (a) the real property located at, and commonly known as

Page 4 of 8 1117 Church Street, Saint Cloud, WI 53079 (the “Property”) and (b) the personal property described in ECF No. 19 at 7–9 (Ex. 1) together with any additional non-real property assets owned by Lighthart Enterprises LLC and Lighthart HVAC Inc., collectively referred to as “Collateral” 2. Matthew Brash of Newpoint Advisors Corporation is hereby appointed Receiver for the Property and Collateral. 3. The Receiver is appointed for the purposes of (a) securing and preserving the Property and Collateral, and (b) selling the Property and Collateral. The Receiver is granted all powers and duties attendant to a receiver under federal law and under Section 813.16(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes necessary to carry out these actions including but not limited to, the powers and duties set forth in this Order. All powers and duties of the Receiver set forth herein may be undertaken or executed without prior Court approval unless otherwise designated. 4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
The Huntington National Bank v. Lighthart Enterprises LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-huntington-national-bank-v-lighthart-enterprises-llc-wied-2023.