Pickens v. CitiMortgage, Inc. ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHARLES PICKENS,
Defendant Be1oW,
Appel1ant,
No. 387, 2015
v. Court Below: Superior Court
of the State of Delaware,
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., successor
by merger to CITH~`INANCIAL
MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.,
C.A. No. N13L-02-021
P1aintiff Below,
Appellee.
OOOOO'JOO'JOO'>CO'JOO'JC¢OOCO'JOO'>¢O'>QO¢OO'>OOG
Submitted: February 5 , 2015
Decided: Apri14, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and VALIHURA, Justic_es.
0 R D E R
This 4“‘ day of April 2016, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and
the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
(l) The appellant, Charles Pickens, filed this appeal from an order of the
Superior Court granting summary judgment to the appel1ee, CitiMortgage, Inc.,
successor by merger to CitiFinancia1 Mortgage Company, Inc. ("CitiMortgage").
We fmd no merit to Pickens’ appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s
judgment.
(2) On April 13, 2005, Yvette Pickens, Pickens’ then-Wife, executed a
promissory note ("Note") for a $184,500 loan from Wilmington Fin`ance, a division
of AIG Federal Savings Banl<. Yvette Pickens also signed a Prepayment Rider and
Allonge to the Note. Pickens’ signature did not appear on any of these documents.
(3) The Note was secured by a mortgage dated April l3, 2005
("Mortgage") on real property owned by Pickens and Yvette Pickens ("the
Property"). Both Pickens and Yvette Pickens signed the Mortgage. The Mortgage
provided that if payments were not made on the Note, the lender could, after thirty
1
days notice, accelerate the sum secured by the Mortgage. The lender could also
foreclose upon the Property for collection of the amount owed under the Note, along
with the costs of suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees, sums expended for the payment of
property taxes and insurance, and any other charges expended for preservation of
the Property.z By assignment dated September 30, 2005, the Mortgage was assigned
to CitiMortgage’s predecessor.
(4) No payments have been made on the Note since March 20ll. In
February 20l3, CitiMortgage filed a scz`re facias sur mortgage complaint against
Pickens and Yvette Pickens. Yvette Pickens did not respond to the complaint.
Pickens initially filed a motion to dismiss, which he withdrew, and then filed an
answer and counterclaims. The Superior Court granted CitiMortgage’s motion to
dismiss the counterclaims on November 14, 2013. Picl938 A.2d 637, 641 (Del. 2007).
6 These claims include allegations that CitiMortgage’s counsel hacked into Pickens’ computer
after the summary judgment motion was granted. These claims were not before the Superior Court
in the first instance and carmot be considered by the Court for the first time on appeal. Supr. Ct.
R. 8; Delaware Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphz`ly, 703 A.2d l202, 1206 (Del. l997).
7 Brooks v. BAC Home Loans Serv., LP, 2012 WL 3637238, at *l (Del. Aug. 23, 2012) (citing
Gordy v. Preform Building Components, Inc., 310 A.2d 893, 895 (Del. Super. Ct. l973)).
4
(10) As to Picl