IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND )

SOCIETY, FSB, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. )

) C.A. No.: N13J-04-323 ALR

VANJYOTSNA PATEL, DILIP )

PATEL, PRAVEEN PATEL and )

JYOTI PATEL, )

)

Defendants. )

)

ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED JANUARY 9, 2015 – AFFIRMED

WRIT OF EXECUTION – GRANTED

Submitted: February 16, 2015

Decided: February 23, 2015

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Objection to the 

Commissioner’s Order dated January 9, 2015 by which the Commissioner granted 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice of Execution. Upon consideration of Defendant’s 

objection and Plaintiff’s opposition thereto and the entire record before the Court,

the Court finds as follows:

1. Under Superior Court Civil Rule 132,1 Commissioners have the power to 

conduct both dispositive and non-dispositive hearings and to make certain 

 1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(3) & (4).
2

pre-trial determinations and recommendations.2 The fundamental nature of 

the subject matter under review—dispositive or non-dispositive—dictates 

the degree of deference a judge must give to such a determination.3

 Upon 

review of a Commissioner’s case-dispositive determination, a judge engages 

in a de novo review.4

 For such case-dispositive determinations, therefore, 

the Commissioner’s disposition acts as proposed findings of fact and 

recommendations and the judge makes a de novo determination of those 

specified portions, proposed findings of fact, or recommendations to which 

an objection is made.5

 For non case-dispositive matters, by contrast, the 

Commissioner’s order is reconsidered by a judge only “where [it] has been 

shown on the record” that the order is “based upon findings of fact that are 

clearly erroneous, or [] contrary to law, or [] an abuse of discretion.”6

2. This case was filed as a judgment action, on which Plaintiff sought to 

execute. On December 22, 2014, an evidentiary hearing was held to 

consider Plaintiff’s request for a writ to execute on the deficiency judgment. 

 2 New Castle County v. Kostyshyn, 2014 WL 1347745, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. April 4, 

2014).

3 Id. 4 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(4)(iv). 5 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(4)(ii). 6 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(3)(ii) & (iv).
3

3. Effectively, the Commissioner’s Order will be case-dispositive. Regardless 

of the standard of review, however, the Commissioner’s Order must be 

affirmed. 

4. The Commissioner found that, based on the clear language of the guaranties 

in this case, Defendants have contractually agreed to pay the deficiency 

judgment and agreed to waive any rights or defenses to contest this action. 

Furthermore, Defendants cannot collaterally attack the value associated with 

the Property recovered at the sale based on the principal of res judicata. 

5. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to collect the deficiency from Defendants. 

The Commissioner’s decision was correct, and must be upheld whether a de 

novo review is applied or a limited review is applied. 

6. The Commissioner was correct in granting Plaintiff a writ of execution in 

this case and no argument asserted by the Defendants warrants a different 

result by this Court.

NOW, THEREFORE, this 23rd day of February 2015, the Objections of 

Defendants are OVERRULED; the Order of the Commissioner dated 

January 9, 2015 is hereby AFFIRMED; and the WRIT of EXCUTION is 
4

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Andrea L. Rocanelli

_____________________________

Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli