## SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE



## STATE OF DELAWARE

Jeffrey J Clark Kent County Courthouse
Judge 38 The Green

Dover, DE 19901

302

- 735

- 2111

March 2 8 , 2017

John C. Cordrey, Esq. Charles R. Owens

Reed Smith, LLP 50 Madeline Drive

1201 Market Street, Suite 1500 Brunswick, ME 04011

- 7173

Wilmi ngton, DE 19801

Deborah D. Statler

123 Blue Beach Road

Dover, DE 19904

RE: JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Associa tion v. Charles R. Owens

& Deborah D. Statler

C.A. No. K14L

- 04

- 001 JJC

Submitted: March 12, 2017

Decided: March 28, 2017

Dear Mr. Cordrey and Ms. Statler:

This letter addresses a motion filed by Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank

National Association (hereinafter “JP Morgan”) seeking summary judgment

against Defendants Charles R. Owens and Deborah D. Statler. JP Morgan filed a

mortgage foreclosure action in this matter o n April 1, 20 14, seeking a judgment i n

r em against them. In the Complaint, JP Morgan included a demand pursuant to 10

Del.C. § 3901, requiring the Defendants to answer allegations in the C omplaint by

affid avit . To date, Defendant Charles Owens has not filed an Answer or responded2

in any way. Defendant Deborah Statler (hereinafter “Ms. Statler ” ) ans wered the

C omplaint but did not do so with an accompanying affidavit describing her

defenses.

JP Morgan alleges various grounds for summary judgment including that the

defendants did not comply with the requirements of 10 Del.C. § 3901. 1 Ms. Statler

oppose s the motion on several grounds and claims that she has made fifteen

monthly paym ents on the mortgage since 2008, and that JP Morgan and its

predece ssor in interest have failed to mediate the matter in good faith. She does

not , however, allege that she complied wi th the requirements of 10 Del.C

. § 3901

for raising and supporting her defenses by af fidavit.

A review of the record reveal s that Ms. Sta tler filed an affidavit on May 19,

2016, more than two years after the complaint was filed . In that affidavit, r ather

than identifying the nature and character of her defenses or their factual basis

, she

merely attested to her “[i]ntention to defend and contest the above cited case .”

Summary judgment is properly granted in favor of JP Morgan in this case

since there are no genuine issues of material fact and JP Morgan is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. 2 Namely, 10 Del. C. § 3901 provides in relevant part,

that in ma tters including scire facias mortgage actions,

the p laintiff may specifically require the defendant or defendants to
answer any or all allegations in the complaint by an affidavit setting

forth the s pecific nature and character of any defense and the factual

basis therefor . . .

. If . . . the defendant or defendants [fail] to respond
to the designated allegations by affidavit filed with the answer or
answers, the designated allegations will be deemed admitted , and
default judgment may be entered thereron . . .

.

1 See Coppedge v. U.S. Bank Ass’n, 35 A.3d 418, 2011 WL 6393197, at *2 (Del. Dec. 19, 2011) (Table)
(recognizing that absent a defendant alleging coherent defenses when required to do pursuant to 10 Del. C . § 3901,
summary judgment is appropriately granted on behalf of the plaintiff)

. 2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56 (c)

.3

H ere, JP Morgan, by specific notation on th e face of the C omplaint,

demanded that its allegations be answered by affidavit. Defendant Charles Owens

has not responded in any manner. Ms. Statler has (1) not answered by affidavit as

required, or (2) separately raised a valid defense to this action. JP Morgan’s

allegations are deemed admitted by virtue of her non

- compliance with the

aforementioned statute . As a result, no genuine issue of m aterial fact remain s

.
Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriately entered on behalf of JP Morgan

aga inst Ms. Statler and Mr. Owens. Furthermore, to the extent Ms. Statler has an

outstanding attempted appeal of the Commissioner’s decision denying her motion

to amend her answer to include counterclaims , it is denied as untimely. 3

JP Morgan is entitled to judgment in rem in this matter in the amount of

$228,722.87, together with interest accruing at the legal rate and costs. Final

judgment in rem is he reby entered in that amount.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Jeffrey J Clark
Judge

3 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(3)(ii)(providing ten days to appeal a Commissioner’s Order by filing written objections

to the Order).