IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KIRK D. ALBERTSON, and § EDWARD M. ALBERTSON, § No. 126, 2014 § Defendants Below- § Appellants, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware in and v. § for Kent County § BAC HOME LOAN § SERVICING, LP FKA § COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS § SERVICING LP, § C.A. No. K10L11105 § Plaintiff Below- § Appellee. § Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014

Before STRINE , Chief Justice, HOLLAND , and RIDGELY , Justices.

O R D E R On this 1st day of October 2014, it appears to the Court that: (1) Defendants-Below/Appellants Kirk D. Albertson ( “Kirk”) and Edward M. Albertson (“Edward M.”) (collectively, the “Albe rtsons”) appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court foreclosing on their property following a grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff-Below/Appellee BAC Ho me Loans Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, L.P. (“BAC”)

. (2) The Albertsons raise three claims on appeal. F irst, they contend that BAC provided insufficient notice of acceleration of the mortgage and foreclosure.2

Second, the Albertsons argue that Edward M.’s life estate terminated upon his failure to pay the mortgage, and resulted in the tr ansfer of the property to Kirk free of the mortgage. And third, the Albertsons contend that BAC did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that it had the a uthority to foreclose upon the mortgaged property. We find no merit to any of the Albertsons’ claims. Accordingly, we affirm. (3) Dolores Albertson owned certain real property in Kent County, Delaware (the “Property”) in fee simple. Upon Dolo res’ death, her will conveyed the Property to her husband Edward M. in the form o f a life estate subject to a condition subsequent, requiring Edward M. to pay an d discharge all the expenses to maintain the premises, including any mortgage. The remainder interest in the life estate was granted to their son, Kirk. On Mar ch 30, 2007, Kirk signed a quitclaim deed transferring the remainder interest to both Kirk and Edward M. as tenants in common while reserving a life estate to Edward M. (4) On February 28, 2008, Kirk and Edward M. took o ut a $200,000 mortgage loan from Quicken Loans Inc. In the mortg age, Quicken nominated Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MER S) to act as mortgagee and nominee for Quicken Loans Inc. MERS then assigned the mortgage to BAC on July 22, 2009. The assignment form was signed by M ary Kist, an employee of BAC and an agent on behalf of MERS.3

(5) The Albertsons defaulted on the mortgage in 201 0. As required by the mortgage, BAC notified the Albertsons by first-clas s mail of its intent to accelerate foreclosure proceedings. Thereafter, BAC initiated foreclosure proceedings. Both parties filed a series of motions, which contribute d to a number of delayed responses to requests throughout the proceedings. The Albertsons filed a motion to dismiss, which the court converted to a motion for summary judgment, and denied on May 15, 2012. The parties later filed cross-mot ions for summary judgment. The trial court granted BAC’s motion and denied the Albertsons’ motion. 1 This appeal followed. (6) We review a Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo

. 2

“This review extends to both ‘the facts and the law in order to determine whether or not the undisputed facts entitled the movant to judgment as a matter of law.’” 3

“We ‘must view the evidence, and all reasonable inf erences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and determin e whether an issue of material fact exists such that summary judgment was improper .’” 4 Under Delaware law, “[a]n assignment of a mortgage or any sealed instru ment attested by 1 creditable

1 BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Albertson , 2014 WL 637659 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2014). 2 Phillips Home Builders, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 700 A.2d 127, 129 (Del. 1997) (citing United Vanguard Fund, Inc. v. TakeCare, Inc. , 693 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Del. 1997)). 3 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Davis , 80 A.3d 628, 632 (Del. 2013) (quoting United Vanguard Fund , 693 A.2d at 1079). 4 Id. (quoting Acro Extrusion Corp. v. Cunningham , 810 A.2d 345, 347 (Del. 2002)).4

witness shall be valid and effectual to convey all the right and interests of the assignor.” 5 (7) As to the instant case, we assume without deci ding that the Albertsons had standing to challenge the assignment at issue. The issue of whether and, if so, when mortgagors have standing is an important one t hat we need not and therefore do not reach to decide this appeal because the Albe rtsons’ claims substantively lack merit. The assignment here was witnessed by mo re than one creditable

witness and notarized. The record also indicates t hat MERS was properly designated as the assignor of the mortgage, and tha t BAC assumed the authority to enforce the mortgage upon the execution of the assi gnment. Accordingly, the Albertsons have failed to make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. BAC is entitled to judgment as a ma tter of law. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice

5 25 Del. C. § 2109.