UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

v. 5:99cv163-SPM

ROBERT M. FENDER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

AMENDED JUDGMENT

BEFORE THE COURT is the Plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment (doc. 19)

and its amended motion (doc. 21). On November 2, 1999, summary judgment

was entered against Defendant, finding him indebted to Plaintiff in the amounts

of $20,955.45 and $14,621.06 based upon two notes and mortgages. (doc.12) 

On December 17, 1999 a suggestion of bankruptcy was filed. (doc. 18) During

the bankruptcy, Defendant failed to make certain post-petition payments which

increased the amounts owed. Due to Defendant’s failure to make these

payments, Plaintiff was required to pay escrow advances for taxes and force

place insurance and other costs, increasing the amount owed by Defendant. 

The bankruptcy was discharged on July 11, 2007. According to a

Certificate of Indebtedness submitted by Plaintiff, as of October 12, 2007,

Defendant owed $10,176.64 plus interest accruing on the principal at one (1.0)

percent per year or 27.28 cents per day on account 2176397 and $31,996.63

Case 5:99-cv-00163-SPM Document 22 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 3
2

plus interest on the principal accruing at 6.750 percent or $4.9506 per day on

account 2176384.

This Court has authority, under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 60, to revisit

or alter a previous judgment for any of the following reasons: “(1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” (2) newly discovered evidence;

(3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or "(6)

any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” This

present request is not for the purpose of revisiting the merits of the underlying

foreclosure case. This request does not require a reexamination of the

substantive laws at issue. It requires only an adjustment of the amount

previously awarded in order to account for post-judgment expenses that were

incurred while the Defendant was undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. 

“The purpose of Rule 60(b) is to balance the principle of finality of a

judgment with the interest of the court in seeing that justice is done in light of all

the facts.” Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005).

Granting this request is squarely in line with judicial principles of equity and

finality. Because “Rule 60(b) is to be given a liberal and remedial construction,”

this Court finds that the request is reasonable and necessary in order to provide

full and complete justice to Plaintiff. Nisson v. Lundy, 975 F.2d 802, 807 (11th

Cir. Ga. 1992) (citations omitted).

Based upon the increased amounts owed by Defendant due to the

Case 5:99-cv-00163-SPM Document 22 Filed 05/20/08 Page 2 of 3
3

intervening bankruptcy and Defendant’s failure to make the post-petition

payments as required during and after the bankruptcy, it is hereby ORDERED

and ADJUDGED that the original Judgment entered on November 2, 1999 is

hereby altered and an AMENDED JUDGMENT is entered against Defendant

and in favor of Plaintiff in the amounts of: 

$10,176.64, plus interest accruing on the principal of $9,921.67 at one

(1.0) percent or 27.28 cents per day beginning on October 13, 2007 on

account 2176397; and, 

$31,996.63, plus interest accruing on the principal balance of $19,761.07

at 6.750 percent or $4.9506 per day on account 2176384.

DONE and ORDERED this nineteenth day of May, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:99-cv-00163-SPM Document 22 Filed 05/20/08 Page 3 of 3