Title: Brady & Mergliano v. Wells Fargo Financial Bank
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 664, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 11, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN BRADY and FRANCES  
§ 
MERGLIANO, 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 664, 2011 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL  
§ 
BANK, a South Dakota State 
 
§ 
Chartered Bank, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. S10A-11-008 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 20, 2012 
Decided: 
July 11, 2012 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of July 2012, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties it appears to the Court that: 
(1) The appellants, John Brady and Frances Mergliano (hereinafter 
“Brady and Mergliano”), filed this appeal from a Superior Court decision 
affirming a default judgment entered by the Court of Common Pleas in favor 
of the appellee, Wells Fargo Financial Bank (hereinafter “Wells Fargo”).  
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Superior Court’s judgment 
must be affirmed. 
2 
 
(2) The record reflects that on August 5, 2009, Wells Fargo sued 
Brady and Mergliano in the Court of Common Pleas for the balance owed on 
a joint credit card Wells Fargo issued to Brady and Mergliano.  Brady and 
Mergliano filed an answer on October 2, 2009, denying any knowledge of 
the credit card account. 
(3) On October 21, 2009, Wells Fargo filed a request for admissions 
attaching twenty-three account statements dated from March 2007 to 
December 2008 addressed to Brady and Mergliano at the two addresses 
where they lived during that period of time.  In response to the requests for 
admissions, Brady and Mergliano stated, without further explanation, that 
they could not specifically admit or deny any of the matters for which 
admissions were requested.  
(4) On June 8, 2010, Wells Fargo filed a second request for 
admissions attaching a payment history and copies of Brady’s signed checks 
dated January, February and March 2008 making payments on the account.  
Neither Brady nor Mergliano responded to Wells Fargo’s second request for 
admissions within the time allotted. 
(5) On August 5, 2010, after the expiration of Brady’s and 
Mergliano’s deadline for filing a response to the second request for 
admissions, Wells Fargo filed a motion for summary judgment with affidavit 
3 
 
under Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 56 (hereinafter “Rule 56”).  The 
motion for summary judgment was noticed for a hearing on September 2, 
2010. 
(6) On August 9, 2010, Brady and Mergliano filed an objection to 
the motion for summary judgment.  Brady and Mergliano contended that the 
motion for summary judgment was premature because it was filed before an 
August 27, 2010 discovery cut-off deadline previously set by the Court of 
Common Pleas.  Other than the objection, Brady and Mergliano did not 
respond to the motion for summary judgment, and neither Brady nor 
Mergliano appeared at the September 2, 2010 hearing in the Court of 
Common Pleas. 
(7) The September 2, 2010 hearing on the summary judgment 
motion was held before a Commissioner.  After the hearing, the 
Commissioner issued a report dated September 2, 2010 recommending that 
the motion should be granted and that judgment should be entered for Wells 
Fargo and against Brady and Mergliano.  
(8) Brady 
and 
Mergliano 
appealed 
the 
Commissioner’s 
recommendation to a judge of the Court of Common Pleas.  On appeal, 
Brady and Mergliano argued that they had no duty to appear at the 
4 
 
September 2, 2010 hearing because the Court of Common Pleas had not yet 
ruled on their objection to the summary judgment motion. 
(9) After reviewing the matter de novo, a judge of the Court of 
Common Pleas issued a decision accepting the Commissioner’s September 
2, 2010 recommendation and entered default judgment in favor of Wells 
Fargo.  In its November 23, 2010 decision, the Court of Common Pleas 
found: 
[Brady’s and Mergliano’s] obligation to appear at 
the hearing on [Wells Fargo’s motion for summary 
judgment] was not extinguished by the mere act of 
making an objection that the [m]otion was 
premature.  Such objections are considered by the 
Court at the hearing after oral argument.  [Brady’s 
and Mergliano’s] failure to appear on the hearing 
date is, therefore, inexcusable.1  
 
(10) Brady and Mergliano appealed the Court of Common Pleas’ 
November 23, 2010 decision to the Superior Court.  On appeal, Brady and 
Mergliano asked the Superior Court to find that their absence from the 
hearing was excusable because the Court of Common Pleas had not yet ruled 
on their objection to Wells Fargo’s summary judgment motion. 
(11) Following briefing by the parties, the Superior Court, by order 
dated November 16, 2011, concluded that the Court of Common Pleas did 
                                            
1 Wells Fargo Fin. Bank v. Brady, Del. Com. Pl., C.A. No. CPU6-09-002342 (Nov. 23, 
2010), quoted in Brady v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 WL 5626626, at *2 (Del. Super.). 
5 
 
not abuse its discretion when entering a default judgment against Brady and 
Mergliano.  When affirming the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, 
the Superior Court found as follows: 
[Brady and Mergliano] received written notice of 
the hearing on Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary 
Judgment.  [Brady and Mergliano] do not allege 
they received any indication from the trial court 
that the hearing would not be held.  Moreover, the 
record reflects that [Brady and Mergliano] failed to 
counter Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary 
Judgment with an affidavit of their own as required 
by the Rules under the circumstances.2 
 
This appeal followed. 
(12) In an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas to the Superior 
Court, the standard of review is whether there is legal error and whether the 
factual findings made by the trial judge are sufficiently supported by the 
record and are the product of an orderly and logical reasoning process.  
Findings of the trial court that are supported by the record must be accepted 
by the reviewing court even if, acting independently, it would have reached 
a contrary conclusion.  This Court applies the same standard of review to the 
Superior Court’s decision.3 
                                            
2 Brady v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 WL 5626626, at *2 (Del. Super.).  See Del. Ct. Com. 
Pl. Civ. R. 56(e) (providing that affidavit must be responded to by adverse party with 
specific facts in default of which summary judgment shall be entered against the adverse 
party). 
3 Wright v. Platinum Fin. Serv., 2007 WL 1850904, at *2 (citing Baker v. Connell, 488 
A.2d 1303, 1309 (Del. 1985); Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671, 673 (Del. 1972)). 
6 
 
 
(13) Having reviewed this matter carefully, we conclude, as did the 
Superior Court, that the factual findings of the Court of Common Pleas are 
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical 
reasoning process.  In the absence of any legal error or abuse of discretion, 
the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the default judgment of the 
Court of Common Pleas must be affirmed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
  
 
 
 
                    Justice