Title: Quarles v. Citicorp Trust Bank
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 431, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 7, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHEENA G. QUARLES a/k/a 
SHEENA Q. DANIELS, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CITICORP TRUST BANK, FSB, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 431, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 03L-05-100 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 4, 2005 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: February 7, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of February 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Sheena Quarles, filed this appeal from an order 
of the Superior Court, dated August 30, 2004, granting a writ of possession 
to the appellee, Citicorp Trust Bank.  Citicorp previously had obtained a 
judgment against Quarles on June 27, 2003 after Quarles failed to answer 
Citicorp’s mortgage foreclosure action.  The foreclosed property was sold to 
 
2
Citicorp, as the highest bidder, at a Sheriff’s sale on September 9, 2003.  The 
sale was confirmed on October 6, 2003.   
 
(2) 
In December 2003, Quarles filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy 
petition.  Citicorp filed a motion for relief from the automatic bankruptcy 
stay so that it could pursue eviction proceedings.   In May 2004, the 
bankruptcy court granted Citicorp relief from the automatic stay and 
thereafter dismissed Quarles’ bankruptcy petition.  Although Quarles 
appealed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of her petition, she did not file a 
motion to stay the judgment.  Accordingly, Citicorp filed its petition for a 
writ of possession.  Although Quarles contended that the eviction 
proceedings could not proceed because further proceedings were stayed 
pending her bankruptcy appeal, the Superior Court concluded that Quarles 
had neither sought nor obtained a stay of the bankruptcy court’s judgment 
pending appeal.  The Superior Court concluded that Quarles had presented 
no valid defense to the writ of possession and granted Citicorp’s petition. 
 
(3) 
In her opening brief on appeal, which consists of a purported 
transcript of Quarles’ conversation with a self-declared “judge,”1 Quarles 
                                                 
1 The Court is referring a copy of this order, along with the appellant’s opening 
brief, to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Board on the Unauthorized Practice 
of Law for whatever action deemed appropriate.  The Court is concerned that the self-
appointed “judge” identified in the appellant’s opening brief improperly may have 
provided legal advice to the appellant in preparation of her brief on appeal. 
 
3
does not raise a single intelligible issue challenging any error in the Superior 
Court’s ruling, although she requests over $16,000,000 in damages.  To the 
extent Quarles ever had a valid defense to the foreclosure action, she waived 
that defense by failing to answer Citicorp’s complaint in June 2003.   
(4) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ respective positions on 
appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed for the reasons set forth in the Superior Court’s bench ruling and 
order dated August 30, 2004.  The Superior Court did not abuse its 
discretion in summarily granting Citicorp’s petition for a writ of possession.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice