IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

KENNETH BENDFELDT, and § 

BETTINA ROLOFF, § No. 68, 2014 

 § 

Defendants Below- § 

 Appellants, § Court Below: Superior Court 

 § of the State of Delaware in and 

v. § for Kent County 

 § 

HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, § 

(USA), § C.A. No. K09L11016 

§ 

 Plaintiff Below- § 

 Appellee. § 

 

Submitted: September 10, 2014 

Decided: October 7, 2014 

 Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, RIDGELY, VALIHURA, 

Justices, and GLASSCOCK,

*

 Vice Chancellor, constituting the Court en Banc. 

O R D E R 

On this 7th day of October 2014, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) Defendants-Below/Appellants Kenneth Bendfeldt and Bettina Roloff 

(collectively, the “Mortgagors”) appeal from a Superior Court order granting a 

Motion to Affirm Default Judgment and Proceed to Sheriff Sale in favor of 

Plaintiff-Below/Appellee HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA) (“HSBC”). The 

Mortgagors raise three claims on appeal. First, they argue that the trial court erred 

by concluding that they did not have standing to challenge HSBC’s ownership of 

 

*

 Sitting by designation pursuant to art. IV, § 12 of the Delaware Constitution and Supreme 

Court Rules 2 and 4(a) to fill up the quorum as required. 
the mortgage. Second, they argue that the trial court erred in making factual 

determinations without considering the Mortgagors’ evidence. And third, they 

contend that the trial court erred when it refused to address the ownership of the 

note that secured the mortgage. 

 (2) In 2007, the Mortgagors obtained a loan for $283,500 from HSBC (the 

“Mortgage”). The Mortgagors also executed a note evidencing their obligation to 

repay the Mortgage, secured by their real property in Harrington, Delaware. The 

Mortgage named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the 

mortgagee in its capacity as nominee for HSBC. On or about March 1, 2009, 

Mortgagors defaulted on the Mortgage. In November 2009, HSBC initiated a 

foreclosure action in the Superior Court. Days after the filing, MERS executed a 

certificate of assignment assigning HSBC the Mortgage. The Mortgagors were 

served notice of the complaint, but failed to appear or file a response. 

(3) On March 22, 2010, the Superior Court issued a default judgment in 

favor of HSBC. HSBC then attempted to execute the judgment by filing a writ of 

levari facias. The writ was issued and a sheriff’s sale was scheduled for July 2010. 

One day prior to the sheriff’s sale, the Mortgagors entered an appearance. The sale 

was stayed, and the parties engaged in discovery. Due to a clerical error in the 

original assignment, MERS executed a corrective assignment to HSBC. HSBC 

then assigned the Mortgage to the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie 
3 

Mae”). On April 23, 2013, HSBC moved to affirm the default judgment and 

proceed to sheriff’s sale. The Mortgagors objected and moved to vacate the 

default judgment. After oral argument and additional briefing, the Superior Court 

granted HSBC’s motion to affirm the default judgment. This appeal followed. 

(4) Rule 55(c)2 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides that 

default judgments may be set aside in accordance with Rule 60(b).3 “‘A motion to 

reopen a judgment under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial 

court and will be reviewed by this Court on appeal for an abuse of that 

discretion.’”4

(5) As a preliminary matter, we assume without deciding that the 

Mortgagors had standing to challenge the assignments in this case. The issue of 

whether and, if so, when mortgagors have standing to challenge an assignment is 

an important one that we need not and therefore do not reach to decide this appeal 

because the Mortgagors’ challenge is without merit. The record shows that the 

Mortgagors were served personally by the Sheriff and did not file a timely answer 

to the complaint.5 The Mortgagors have been in default since 2009. The record 

also shows that HSBC was both the holder of the mortgage and the holder of the 

 

2

 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 55(c). 

3

 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 60(b). 

4 Gibson v. Car Zone, 2011 WL 5354270, at *2 (Del. Nov. 8, 2011) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

5

See Appellants’ Op. Br. App. at A7, Dkt. Item 6. 
4 

negotiable note evidencing the Mortgagors’ debt. The note was endorsed in blank, 

a copy was attached to HSBC’s brief submitted to the trial court, and HSBC 

offered to produce the original note upon request. 

(6) The burden lies on the Mortgagors to show that the default judgment 

should be vacated under Rule 60(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil 

Procedure. We find no abuse of discretion in denying relief to the Mortgagors 

because they have failed to meet this high burden. Accordingly, we affirm. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely

 Justice