Title: Donovan v. Dover Federal Credit Union
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 564, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 10, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DENISE DONOVAN,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellant,
v.
DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION,
Defendant Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 564, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§  C.A. No. 00L-12-020
§
§
§
Submitted: March 15, 2002
  Decided:   April 10, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This tenth day of April 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The 
plaintiff-appellant, 
Denise 
Donovan, 
filed 
an
appeal/motion for stay from the October 31, 2001 order of the Superior
Court denying her motion to stay a sheriff’s sale of real property.  On
November 9, 2001, this Court dismissed Donovan’s motion on the ground
of mootness and the Clerk issued a notice to show cause why Donovan’s
appeal should not be dismissed  as moot.  Donovan failed to respond in a
2
timely manner to the notice to show cause and, as a result, her appeal was
dismissed.
(2)
On December 5, 2001, Donovan filed a motion for
reargument claiming that her monetary claims had been dismissed
improperly.  Donovan asserted that defendant-appellee Dover Federal
Credit Union (“DFCU”) had damaged her “financial and credit status,”
that “[t]housand of dollars need to be credited back . . . from the numerous
account discrepancies and wrongful acts [of DFCU]” and that  DFCU
“created costly expenses to the family.” We concluded in the interest of
justice that Donovan’s motion for reargument should be granted and the
appeal be permitted to proceed solely with respect to any monetary claims.
(3)
 In her brief, Donovan has failed to present any evidence
supporting the claims of monetary damages made in her motion for
reargument.  There is, thus, no basis upon which this Court can consider
any such claims.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
3