Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND

INVESTMENTS, INC., f/k/a F&W

AGRISERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

vs. 5:02-CV-080-SPM

BAGGETT BROTHERS FARM, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants/Counter-Claimaints.

_________________________________/

ORDER REOPENING CASE AND AMENDING JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon “Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief

From Orders” (doc. 130) filed February 28, 2005, in which Plaintiff asks this Court

to reconsider its order denying a previous motion to reopen the case based on

lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the motion

must be granted and the judgment amended.

BACKGROUND:

On March 31, 2004, this Court entered judgment for Plaintiff on all issues,

ordering that

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM Document 131 Filed 05/06/2005 Page 1 of 5

AGRICULTURAL v. BAGGETT BROTHERS, et al Doc. 131

Dockets.Justia.com
Page 2 of 5

[t]he Defendant BBFI is liable for debts incurred based on the

series of loans F&W Agriservices provided the corporation from

April 11, 1997 through March 10, 2001, including all interest derived

therefrom; that BBFI’s corporate veil must be pierced to properly

compensate the Plaintiff; that the Lease Agreement is a nullity and

consequently unenforceable; and that the Security Agreement

signed on February 5, 1998 must be foreclosed, with the Plaintiff

retaining a security interest in the collateral outlined therein. Costs

are allowed as provided by law.

See Judgment (doc. 111) filed March 31, 2004. Consequently, Plaintiff filed a

motion (doc. 112) for attorney fees and for clarification of certain aspects of the

judgment, as well as a bill of costs (doc. 117). Although Defendants commenced

the appeal process shortly afterward, the parties entered into settlement

negotiations after the final judgment was entered. Defendant Ada Mae Baggett,

of her own accord, filed a “Notice of Oral Settlement” (doc. 121) through counsel

on May 12, 2004, indicating that the settlement was in the process of being

reduced to writing. 

Based on this representation, the Court entered an order on June 1, 2004

(doc. 123) dismissing the case but retaining jurisdiction for sixty days, during

which any party could move to reopen the case for good cause shown. 

Apparently the parties were unable to successfully finalize their settlement

agreement, because on December 20, 2004, Defendants sent a letter (doc. 127,

exh. A) to Plaintiffs indicating that the Defendants were withdrawing their

agreement and their offer to settle the case. Based on this correspondence,

Plaintiffs moved to reopen the case on January 24, 2005 (doc. 127). As more

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM Document 131 Filed 05/06/2005 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

than sixty days had elapsed since the order of dismissal, the Court denied the

motion (doc. 129). Plaintiff now asks the Court for relief from that order under

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 

CURRENT STATUS:

Plaintiff now possesses a final judgment of record against Defendants but

is in need of further direction from the Court before executing on that judgment. 

Specifically, Plaintiff requests this Court to “grant relief from the June 1, 2004

Order and the February 4, 2005 Order and rule upon the outstanding motions

filed by the Plaintiff and amend the Final Judgment to clarify that because the

corporate veil was pierced, it is joint and several among all Defendants, to

delineate the specific amount of the monetary judgment, and to award

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as a prevailing party and pursuant to law.”

The Court finds good reason under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)

to grant relief from the previous orders dismissing the case. It is apparent that

the parties mistakenly believed they had agreed to a settlement; the realization of

such error is sufficient cause under Rule 60(b) to grant relief. E.g., 4:20 Comm.,

Inc. v. The Paradigm Co., 336 F.3d 775, 779 (8th Cir. 2003)(citing MIF Realty

L.P. v. Rochester Assocs., 92 F.3d 752, 755-57 (8th Cir.1996)). To do justice,

the case must be reopened and permitted to proceed. 

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM Document 131 Filed 05/06/2005 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

1

 The date of April 11, 1997 in the judgment is a scrivener’s error–April 1, 1997 is the correct

date.

DISCUSSION:

As to the details of the Court’s previous judgment (doc. 111), the Court

finds that the total amount owed to Plaintiff is $448,038.58, inclusive of interest. 

This figure is derived from Exhibit A of the complaint (doc. 1). Exhibit A is a

spreadsheet spanning dates from April 1, 19971

 through December 31, 2001,

showing accounts receivable from Defendants. The spreadsheet contains

columns for daily and cumulative principal and interest balances, and the

rightmost column shows the total balance due each day. On March 10, 2001, the

cumulative balance, including $10,583.18 in interest, was $448,038.58. 

Because the Court previously found that the individual members of the

Baggett family served merely as alter egos of Baggett Brothers Farm, Inc. and

that the corporate veil must be pierced, that $448,038.58 liability is properly

imposed on individual stockholders, directors, officers and manipulators. See

American Mortg. & Safe Deposit Co. v. Rubin, 168 So. 2d 777, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA

1964). 

Finally, as to the amount of attorney fees, the Court has reserved

jurisdiction to award fees and costs as provided by law. A briefing schedule on

the matter shall be set forth by separate order.

Accordingly, it is

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM Document 131 Filed 05/06/2005 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The motion for relief from orders (doc. 130) is hereby granted.

2. This case is reopened.

3. The clerk shall prepare an amended judgment to include the

following:

a. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the amount of

$448,038.58, representing monies owed for debts incurred

between April 1, 1997 and March 10, 2001. This amount

includes $10,583.18 in interest.

b. As the corporate veil has been pierced, the liability is

apportioned jointly and severally among all Defendants in this

case.

c. The Lease Agreement is a nullity and consequently

unenforceable.

d. The Security Agreement signed February 5, 1998 must be

foreclosed, and Plaintiff retains a security interest in the

collateral outlined therein.

e. Attorney fees and costs shall be awarded as allowed by law.

DONE AND ORDERED this sixth day of May, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM Document 131 Filed 05/06/2005 Page 5 of 5