Summary
rejecting Mr. Strong's arguments that the note is fraudulent
Summary of this case from JDT Wells Fargo Bank v. StrongOpinion
C.A. No. K15C-03-003 RBY
02-26-2016
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Plaintiff, v. EARL STRONG , Defendant.
Daniel Conway, Esquire, Atlantic Law Group LLC, Georgetown, Delaware for Plaintiff. Earl Strong, Pro se.
Upon Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Granted
OPINION
Daniel Conway, Esquire, Atlantic Law Group LLC, Georgetown, Delaware for Plaintiff. Earl Strong, Pro se. Young, J.
SUMMARY
Wells Fargo Bank, NA ("Plaintiff") filed an action to recover the outstanding balance and interest owed on a promissory note by Earl Strong ("Defendant"). After a lengthy procedural history, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Because Defendant offers nothing beyond a baseless claim of a "fraud" to rebut the default on the note, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The facts of the case are rather straightforward, although the legal proceedings have been varied and lengthy. Defendant executed a promissory note payable to lender MIT Lending in 2004. During the life of this agreement, MIT Lending's interest was transferred to Plaintiff. Upon Defendant's default in 2005, having failed to make the required payments, the loan was accelerated. Defendant executed a reaffirmation agreement and statement of intention in 2009, both confirming and acknowledging the underlying debt owed to Plaintiff.
Defendant has been litigating both the note and the mortgage on his home for over a decade, since 2005. Plaintiffs who held either instrument over that time period have brought multiple cases in multiple courts. At this time, Plaintiff holds the note on which Defendant owes a substantial debt. Defendant has defaulted on the note. The result of default under the note's acceleration clause includes full repayment of the loan. Absent repayment by Defendant, Plaintiff has the right to enforce the note to the full extent of the law.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate where the record exhibits no genuine issue of material fact so that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This Court shall consider the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any" in deciding the motion. The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of material issues of fact; the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to show that there are material issues of fact in dispute. The Court views the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. When material facts are in dispute, or "it seems desirable to inquire more thoroughly into the facts, to clarify the application of the law to the circumstances," summary judgment will not be appropriate. However, when the facts permit a reasonable person to draw but one inference, the question becomes one for decision as a matter of law.
Tedesco v. Harris, 2006 WL 1817086 (Del. Super. June 15, 2006).
Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c).
Fauconier v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 847289, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 1, 2010).
Id.
Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 468-69 (Del. 1962) (citing Knapp v. Kinsey, 249 F.2d 797 (6th Cir. 1957)).
Wootten v. Kiger, 226 A.2d 238, 239 (Del. 1967).
DISCUSSION
A Court is to grant a motion for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The movant has the burden of showing that no issues are in dispute. Additionally, the Court is to view the facts in a light most favorable to the non-movant. Although, where a more thorough inquiry would be desirable to resolve factual issues, a court is to deny a summary judgment motion, this Court feels such an inquiry would prove fruitless.
Del. Super. Ct. Civ.R. 56(c).
Windom, 903 A.2d at 280.
Id.
Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 468-469 (Del. 1962).
Here, Defendant has asserted repeatedly that the note is a fraud, and that he is not in default. However, all evidence gathered from the pleadings and attachments directly contradicts Defendant's position. Plaintiff has shown that Defendant executed a promissory note payable to Plaintiff in 2004. Plaintiff has also shown that Defendant stopped making payments which were agreed to under the note in October 2005. Plaintiff has also shown that it accelerated the debt as permitted under the terms of the note. Defendant has failed to meet the burden of rebutting Plaintiff's initial showing.
A reasonable trier of fact would necessarily find the following material facts at the heart of this case: (1) Plaintiff and Defendant executed a promissory note agreement, which Defendant breached by non-payment; and 2) Plaintiff seeks to exercise its rights under the note. These facts point to a simple conclusion: Defendant irrefutably defaulted on his debt. Plaintiff now attempts to obtain a judgment on the note, as is its right.
See Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995) ("[i]f the facts permit reasonable persons to draw from them but one inference, the question is ripe for summary judgment"). --------
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. This Order makes MOOT all other outstanding motions. Judgment is entered on behalf of Plaintiff on the claim to enforce the terms of the within Promissory Note. An Inquisition hearing will be scheduled to determine the amount of Final Judgment.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Robert B. Young
J. RBY/dsc
Via File & ServeXpress & U.S. Mail
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Counsel
Earl Strong
File