Comerica Bank, a Texas Banking Association v. Patricia Gormely Prince, P.C. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COMERICA BANK,
a Texas Banking Association,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA GORMELY PRINCE, P.C.,
et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:21-cv-12913
District Judge Terrence G. Berg
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
___________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE NON-PERIODIC
WRIT OF GARNISHMENT ISSUED AS TO DEFENDANT PATRICIA
GORMELY PRINCE, P.C. AND GARNISHEE IDONNA J. MILLER (ECF
No. 63) and GARNISHEE MILLER’S DISCLOSURE AND REQUEST FOR
HEARING (ECF No. 72)
Comerica Bank (Plaintiff) initiated this lawsuit in 2021 in order to, inter
alia, obtain a money judgment “against Defendant Patricia Gormely Prince, P.C. in
an amount not less than $180,739.11 . . . .” (ECF No. 1, PageID.14.) On
September 20, 2024, Judge Berg filed a consent judgment in favor of Plaintiff
Comerica Bank and against Defendant Patricia Gormely Prince, P.C. as to Count I
of the Complaint in the amount of $120,350.53 . . . .” (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff then
requested issuance of 13 non-periodic writs of garnishment (ECF Nos. 41-53),
Case 2:21-cv-12913-TGB-APP ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 3

2
which occurred on October 15, 2024 (ECF Nos. 54-66), among which was one
issued to garnishee Idonna J. Miller (ECF Nos. 45, 63).
On April 15, 2025, Miller, appearing in pro per, filed a verified disclosure
and request for hearing. (ECF No. 72), and Judge Berg referred the matter to me
(ECF No. 73). I originally noticed a hearing for May 30, 2025, but it has been
adjourned on several occasions. (See ECF Nos. 74, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88.)
Meanwhile, the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic has entered a limited
appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf. (ECF No. 84.)
On November 10, 2025, Attorney John P. Tragge (Comerica Bank),
Attorney Barbara Patek (Garnishee Idonna J. Miller), and Plaintiff appeared via
video for the hearing. At that time, the Court was informed that Comerica Bank
sold the post-judgment debt to a third party creditor – whose identity is unclear at
this time – in advance of Comerica’s forthcoming merger with Fifth Third Bank.1
Also, it was estimated that the amount sought to be collected from Garnishee
Miller was in the range of four figures.
Upon consideration of the relevant papers and counsels’ arguments and
representations at the video hearing, and for all the reasons stated on the record by
the Court, which are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully restated
1 See https://www.53.com/content/fifth-third/en/mkg/bettertogether.html (last
visited Nov. 10, 2025).
Case 2:21-cv-12913-TGB-APP ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 3

3
herein, the non-periodic writ of garnishment issued as to Patricia Gormely Prince,
P.C. and garnishee Miller (ECF No. 63) and garnishee Miller’s disclosure and
request for hearing (ECF No. 72) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Inter alia, it appears Plaintiff no longer has standing to seek the relief requested,
the identity of the judgment creditor or holder of the debt is unknown, and it is also
unknown whether the debt has been written off or if there is any remaining desire
to pursue collection.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
Dated: November 10, 2025 	________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Case 2:21-cv-12913-TGB-APP ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 3