IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR K

ENT COUNTY

JP MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL : BANK, : C.A. No: K13L-01-002 TBD : Plaintiff, : : v. : : DONNA M. SMITH, : : Defendant. :

Submitted: March 20, 2015 Decided : March 25, 2015 Upon Con sideration of Plaint iff’s Motion to D ismiss Defendan t’s “Coun terclaim”

GRANTED

ORDER

Daniel T . Conwa

y, E squire, A

tlantic L aw Grou

p, LLC , Georg etown, D elaware for Plaintiff. Donna Smith, pro se .

Young, J.JP Morgan v . Smith C.A. No.: K13L-01-002 TBD March 25, 2015

2 DECISION JP Morgan Cha se, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) moves t o dismiss Don na M. S m ith’s (“Defendant”) eleventh h ou r filin g entitled “Counterclaim. ” Plaintiff argues that Defend ant’s pleading is deficien t and untimely. As Plain tiff’sMotion to D ismiss Defenda nt’s “ Countercl aim”

is well- taken, it

is GRANTED

. Plaintiff , the holder of

Defenda nt’s m ortgage on p roperty

located a t 16 Anne Gillis Lane in

Smy rna, Delaware (“

Property”), filed

the present action on January 7, 2013. Pl aintiff’s Complaint alleged that Defendant had defaulted on the mortgage. For two y ears foll owing the f

iling of the

Compl aint, De fendant too k no action with respect to the law su it pending against he r. As a result, on Septem

ber 27, 201 3, Plaintiff moved for entr y of de fault ju dgment . This C ourt enter ed such judgment

on October 1, 2013. P laintiff then filed a writ of levari f acias, o n January

8, 2 015, to expose the Property to Sheriff’ s Sale. This Court issued sai d writ on January

15, 2015. With

the m atter al l but

concluded, Defenda

nt, in an appar

ent last ditch effor

t, filedpapers entitled“Counterclaim .” It is wholly incom prehensible. Defendant cites
amyr iadof sources, ranging from the Uniform Comm ercial Code to the Bible, bu t, despite these auth orities, convey s very little. A s pe r P laintiff, the Counte rclaim appears to be a dem

and for docum

ents. Ev en that is qu estionable . Plainti ff’s c itation to previous c ase law of this Cour t is well- taken: Pleading deficienci es t hat warr

ant dism issal inclu de (1) con fused and ramb ling narrative of char ges and conc lusions; (2) un t idy ass ortment of c li ams that areneither pl ainly n or concise ly sta ted, nor m

eaningf ull y dist inguished from

bold conclus ions, shar p harangue s and person a l comm ents; and (3) f

ailing to allege with even modest particularity the datesJP Morgan v . Smith C.A. No.: K13L-01-002 TBD March 25, 2015

1 US Bank N. A. v. Copp edge, e t al. , C.A. No. K 11L- 02-042 RB Y (Del. Su per. Ct. Se

pt. 15, 2011) (internal quotations omitted).

2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12 (a) (stating in relevant part, “[a] defendant shall serve a n answer within 20 days after se

rvice of process, complaint and affidavit....”).

3 PNC Bank v. Turner , 659 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. Super. Ct. 1995). 3 and place s of allege d transac tions. 1 Aside fro m war ran ti ng di smi ssal due to th e conf used natu re of De fenda nt’s pleading, Plaintif

f is a lso co rrect in

asserting

that Def endant’ s Counterc laim is unt imely. To begin, Defendant never filed an a nswer or any oth er respon sive pleadi ng to Plaintif f’s Com plaint. S uperior C ourt Civil Rule 12(a

) is explic itin its requi

rement that an answer is to be f iled with 2 0 days o f service of th e com

plain t. 2 Plain tiff’s Compl aint

was filed and served in 2 013, two yea rs p rior to Defen dant’s f irst filin g in this case. Moreover , Dela ware c ase law is clear

in its requi

rement that “ leave of t

he Courtunder Rule 15(a) [must be had] in order to ad d a counterclaim... which was available at the tim

e of respo nse to plain

t iff’s init ial pleadi ng.” 3 Defenda nt, again , failed to fo llow any requir ed protoc ol. Defend ant’s Countercl aim is both def icient and untimely. T hus, Plain tiff’s Motion to Di smiss i s GRANTED

. IT IS SO ORDERED

. /s/ Rober t B. Young J. RBY /l mc oc: Prothonotary cc: Counsel Ms. Donna

Smit h Opinion Di stribution