Title: Hayford v. Travelers Bank

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SHEILA HAYFORD, § § No. 180, 2007 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware in and v. § for Kent County § TRAVELERS BANK AND § TRUST, FSB, a Maryland § Corporation, § § Plaintiff Below, § C.A. No. 02L-02-012 Appellee. § Submitted: February 22, 2008 Decided: March 7, 2008 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. O R D E R This 7th day of March 2008, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: (1) The pro se appellant, Sheila Hayford (“Hayford”), filed this appeal from a Superior Court decision dated March 15, 2007, that granted a writ of possession to the appellee, Travelers Bank and Trust (“Travelers”). We find no merit to Hayford’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. (2) In 2002, Travelers filed a mortgage foreclosure action against residential property owned by Hayford (“the property”). When Hayford did 2 not file an answer to the complaint, a default judgment was entered in Travelers’ favor on April 15, 2002. Thereafter, Travelers attempted several times to schedule the property for sale at a sheriff sale. Each time, however, Hayford was successful in stopping the sheriff sale by filing a bankruptcy petition that invoked an automatic stay.1 (3) A sheriff sale was scheduled for September 7, 2006. On September 6, 2006, one day before the sale, Hayford filed a petition for bankruptcy. The sheriff sale proceeded as scheduled, and the property was sold to Travelers as the highest bidder. (4) In October 2006, Travelers filed a petition and affidavit for a writ of possession.2 Hayford opposed the writ, arguing that her bankruptcy petition filed on September 6, 2006, should have stayed the September 7 sheriff sale. (5) In the decision of March 15, 2007, which is on appeal in this Court, the Superior Court rejected Hayford’s contentions and awarded possession of the property to Travelers. The Superior Court determined that Hayford did not qualify for an automatic stay under the bankruptcy statute. 1See 11 U.S.C., § 362(a), (b) (2006) (governing in bankruptcy cases automatic stay of judicial actions involving debtor). 2Del. Code Ann. title 10, § 5011 (1999). 3 (6) On appeal, Hayford challenges the initial mortgage foreclosure action and 2002 default judgment. Hayford does not argue her eligibility for an automatic stay under the bankruptcy statute nor does she challenge the Superior Court’s order of March 15, 2007 that granted possession of the property to Travelers. (7) Hayford’s claims arising from the 2002 mortgage foreclosure action and default judgment are not justiciable in this appeal from the Superior Court’s 2007 decision on Travelers’ petition for a writ of possession. In the absence of any evidence that the Superior Court erred when granting the writ of possession to Travelers, the Court concludes that the March 15, 2007 decision of the Superior Court should be affirmed.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 3See Donovan v. Dover Fed. Credit Union, 2003 WL 141252 (Del. Supr.) (affirming judgment for appellant’s failure to argue issues on appeal and in the absence of any evidence that procedures for issuance of writ of possession were not followed).