Case Title: Udo v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 462-2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-07-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE.

VICTOR UDO, §
§ No. 462, 2014
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE — § in and for New Castle County
CORPORATION, assignee of CENLAR — § C.A. No. NI2L-12-038
FSB, assignee of LYDIAN MORTGAGE, §
§
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §

Submitted: June 5, 2015
Decided: July 17, 2015

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER

‘This 17" day of July 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Victor Udo, filed this appeal from an order of the
Superior Court, dated July 24, 2015, granting a wrt of possession to Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”). We find no merit to Udo’s appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court's judgment.

(2) The record reflects that, on January 25, 2008, Udo executed and
delivered a mortgage to Lydian Mortgage, which was secured by property located

at 1 Stearrett Drive, Newark, Delaware 19702. Udo asserts that he moved to
‘Nigeria in 2011,' which is when he stopped making his mortgage payments. On
July 6, 2012, Lydian Mortgage assigned its entire interest to Cenlar FSB. On
‘August 6, 2012, Cenlar issued a notice to Udo of its intent to foreclose on the
property because Udo was in default of his mortgage payments. Cenlar filed its
complaint on December 14, 2012. The record reflects that attempts were made to
serve Udo personally, by certified and first class mail, and by posting on the
property. Udo failed to respond. A default judgment was entered, and the property
was sold at Sheriff's sale to Cenlar on September 10, 2013, who then transferred
its bid to Freddie Mac on October 15, 2013. The sale was confirmed on October
25, 2013.

(3) Freddie Mac filed a writ of possession on January 16, 2014. On
February 6, 2014, the Superior Court issued a notice to Udo directing him to show
cause why the writ of possession should not be granted. Udo filed a response on
March 17, 2014. Freddie Mac filed a second writ of possession on May 12, 2014
The Superior Court again issued a notice to Udo directing him to show cause why
the writ of possession should not be granted. A hearing was held on July 14, 2014.
Udo did not appear, but his wife did, even though she was not a party to the
proceeding. The Superior Court held that the only issue properly before it on the

writ of possession was Udo's contention that he had never received proper notice

" Udo's wife and two children continued to live in the propery.
of the foreclosure action. The Superior Court rejected Udo's claim of improper
notice and issued the writ of possession on July 25, 2014. After Udo filed an
emergency motion, the Superior Court stayed the writ of possession pending
appeal, conditioned upon Udo's payment of a $9,000 bond.

(4) In his opening brief on appeal, Udo requests that the mortgage
foreclosure and Sheriff's sale be rescinded and that title to the property be restored
to him because: (i) he was denied his right to foreclosure mediation; (ii) Freddie

Mac has been unjustly enriched; (ji

 

he was never served with notice of the
foreclosure action; (iv) the Superior Court had no jurisdiction over him because of
the lack of proper notice; and (v) the foreclosure was pursued in bad faith.

(5) In response, Freddie Mac argues that the only permissible objection to
a Sheriff's sale after the sale has been confirmed is lack of proper notice.”
Accordingly, Freddie Mac asserts that Udo's claims of unjust enrichment and bad

th are not properly before the Court.

 

(6) We agree. As the Superior Court properly held, Udo's only
cognizable claim in light of the confirmation of the sale was his allegation of
improper notice. The record, however, reflects that Cenlar (the then-plaintiff)

complied with the requirements of Superior Court Civil Rule 4(£)(4) and that such

2 Deibler v. Atlantic Properties Group, Inc., 652 A.2d 553 556 (Del. 1995).
compliance constituted legal and sufficient service of the complaint on Udo.’ Udo

‘was properly served with notice of the foreclosure proceedings and of his right to

 

participate in mediation. He failed to respond. He is now barred from maki

 

any
collateral attack on the Sheriff's sale.*
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

 

> Osowiecki v, Wells Fargo Nat'l Ass'n, 2012 WL 5818326 (Del. Nov. 15, 2012).
* Lismore v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 2013 WL 4538363 (Del. Aug. 23, 2013).