Title: McCafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 421, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN P. McCAFFERTY and   
§ 
MELISSA A. McCAFFERTY,  
§ 
No. 421, 2014 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N09L-10-243 
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 22, 2014 
Decided: 
December 8, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of December 2014, upon consideration of the appellants’ 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendants-below/appellants, John P. McCafferty and Melissa A. 
McCafferty (hereinafter “the McCaffertys”) have filed an appeal from a scire 
facias sur mortgage action (hereinafter “mortgage foreclosure action”) brought 
against them by the plaintiff-below/appellee, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter 
“Wells Fargo”).  The McCaffertys seek review of the Superior Court’s opinions of 
January 14, 2014 and orders of February 11, 2014 and August 1, 2014.  The 
January 14 opinions ruled on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, 
2 
 
denying summary judgment on the McCaffertys’ motion and granting summary 
judgment to Wells Fargo on the issue of liability.  The February 11 order denied 
the McCaffertys’ motion for reconsideration of the January 14 opinions, and the 
August 1 final order awarded damages to Wells Fargo.  Wells Fargo has moved to 
affirm the Superior Court judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the McCaffertys’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
(2) 
In 2005, the McCaffertys executed a thirty-year mortgage securing a 
$200,000.00 loan against residential property located in Claymont, Delaware.  
Under the terms of the mortgage, the McCaffertys promised to pay the loan in 
monthly installments.  The mortgage also provided that if the McCaffertys 
defaulted, Wells Fargo could require immediate payment in full on the loan 
secured by the mortgage. 
(3) 
In 2009, Wells Fargo brought a mortgage foreclosure action alleging 
that the McCaffertys had failed to pay the monthly installments required under the 
mortgage.   In their answer to Wells Fargo’s complaint, the McCaffertys raised 
affirmative defenses, including “estoppel, waiver, laches and/or acquiescence,” and 
counterclaims, including “illegal consumer collection.”  Later, the McCaffertys 
3 
 
stipulated to a dismissal of the counterclaims after the parties determined that the 
claims were beyond the scope of the mortgage foreclosure action.1 
(4) 
Among other motions filed during the course of the mortgage 
foreclosure action, the McCaffertys filed motions “to strike evidence” and “to 
compel modification agreement,” which were denied, and a motion to dismiss, 
claiming that Wells Fargo lacked standing to bring the action.  At a hearing on July 
3, 2013, and in an order of the same date, the Superior Court denied the motion to 
dismiss. 
(5) 
In December 2013, the parties filed cross motions for summary 
judgment.  After a hearing on January 10, 2014, the Superior Court issued an 
opinion on January 14, 2014, denying the McCaffertys’ summary judgment 
motion.  The Superior Court concluded: 
[A]lthough [the McCaffertys] assert that an alleged 
“HAMP modification agreement” is controlling, [they] 
have not produced evidence of such an agreement and 
have not asserted any permissible defenses in the scire 
facias sur mortgage action arising from the Mortgage.  
Because the parties have not entered into any 
modification agreements, the Mortgage remains valid and 
enforceable as a matter of law. 
   
                                
1 After stipulating to the dismissal of the counterclaims in the in rem mortgage foreclosure 
action, the McCaffertys filed an in personam complaint alleging breach of contract, unfair and 
deceptive business practice, negligence/gross negligence, and unjust enrichment against Wells 
Fargo and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.  McCafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, Del. 
Super., C.A. No. N13C-07-042.  The case is pending in the Superior Court.      
4 
 
In a separate opinion issued the same date, the Superior Court granted summary 
judgment to Wells Fargo on the issue of liability.  The Superior Court concluded: 
Based on the facts and circumstances, there is no genuine 
issue of material fact concerning the validity of the 
Mortgage, its enforceability, [the McCaffertys’] breach, 
or [Wells Fargo’s] entitlement to accelerate the balance 
and proceed with foreclosure.  While [the McCaffertys] 
raise a number of allegations to challenge summary 
judgment, [they] have not proved the existence of any 
material issues of fact nor have they pled any permissible 
defenses in the scire facias sur mortgage action. 
 
(6) 
On January 28, 2014, the McCaffertys filed a motion seeking 
reconsideration of the Superior Court’s January 14 opinions.   By order dated 
February 11, 2014, the Superior Court denied the motion for reconsideration as 
untimely under Superior Court Civil Rule 59 and as without merit. 
(7) 
The Superior Court then referred the issue of damages to a 
Commissioner.  After briefing and an inquisition hearing, the Commissioner issued 
an order on June 23, 2014, awarding $290,538.71 in damages to Wells Fargo.  
Neither party filed objections to the Commissioner’s order.   Upon review of the 
order, the parties’ briefs and the transcript of the inquisition hearing, the Superior 
Court entered final judgment on August 1, 2014 in the amount of $290,538.71.  
This appeal followed. 
(8) 
In a mortgage foreclosure action, a mortgagor must establish why the 
mortgaged property should not be seized and sold to pay the mortgagor’s 
5 
 
indebtedness.2  A mortgagor’s defenses in a mortgage foreclosure action are 
limited to defenses to the mortgagor’s obligations under the mortgage.3  Stated 
another way, a defense that does not relate to the mortgage is not properly raised in 
a mortgage foreclosure action.4 
(9) 
We review the Superior Court’s grant or denial of a summary 
judgment motion de novo.5  On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party 
must demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the 
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.6 
(10) On appeal, the McCaffertys have raised a number of claims that they 
pursued without success in the Superior Court.  Wells Fargo contends that 
summary affirmance on appeal is appropriate because the McCaffertys’ claims 
before this Court, as in the Superior Court, have no bearing on the entry of 
summary judgment, which was based on the McCaffertys’ default under the 
mortgage. 
                                
2 10 Del. C. § 3901. 
3 See Brooks v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 2012 WL 3637238 (Del. Aug. 23, 2012) (citing 
Gordy v. Preform Bldg. Components, Inc., 310 A.2d 893, 895 (Del. Super. 1973) (providing that 
defenses to a foreclosure action are limited to payment, satisfaction, absence of seal, or a plea in 
avoidance of the deed))). 
4 See Harmon v. Wilmington Trust Co., 1995 WL 379214 (Del. June 19, 1995) (citing Gordy v. 
Preform Bldg. Components, Inc., 310 A.2d 893, 896 (Del. Super. 1973)).  
5 ConAgra Foods Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 21 A.3d 62, 68 (Del. 2011). 
6 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c). 
6 
 
(11) The McCaffertys claim that Wells Fargo lacked standing to bring the 
mortgage foreclosure action.  The Superior Court denied the claim on July 3, 2013, 
ruling that Wells Fargo, as record holder and mortgagee, had standing to bring the 
mortgage foreclosure action.  The Superior Court reiterated the July 3, 2013 ruling 
in the January 14 opinion granting summary judgment, stating that Wells Fargo 
“has standing to initiate and pursue this foreclosure action pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 
5061 and the Mortgage itself,” which was “duly recorded.”  Having considered the 
parties’ positions on appeal, we agree that Wells Fargo had standing to bring the 
mortgage foreclosure action and conclude that the McCaffertys’ claim to the 
contrary is without merit. 
(12) The McCaffertys claim that Wells Fargo was precluded from bringing 
the foreclosure action because it made an oral offer to modify the repayment terms 
of the loan secured by the mortgage.  In the January 14 opinions, however, the 
Superior Court concluded otherwise, finding that there was no agreement to 
modify the mortgage, and that the mortgage remained “valid and enforceable as a 
matter of law.”  The court further determined that the parties’ post-default 
negotiations were not a valid defense in the mortgage foreclosure action, because 
the negotiations did not concern the validity or legality of the mortgage documents.  
On appeal, the McCaffertys have not demonstrated material issues of fact 
supporting their claim that the parties agreed to a modification of the repayment 
7 
 
terms or that the existence of such an agreement was a valid defense to the 
mortgage foreclosure action. 
(13) Finally, the McCaffertys claim that they were denied their statutory 
right to mediation.  When granting summary judgment, the Superior Court noted 
that the McCaffertys were not eligible for mediation under the statute because 
Wells Fargo’s mortgage foreclosure action was filed in October 2009, pre-dating 
the mediation statute, which was codified in 2011.  Moreover, the Superior Court 
noted that “there [was] no indication from [the McCaffertys] (or otherwise) that 
they elected to enter the Mediation Program pursuant to Superior Court 
Administrative Directive 2009-3,” which governed mortgage foreclosures filed 
after September 2009.  On appeal, we can discern no error in the Superior Court’s 
rejection of the McCaffertys’ claim that they were entitled to and denied 
mediation.7 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice 
                                
7 See 10 Del. C. § 5602C (codifying Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program) 
(originally enacted Sept. 21, 2011)); Administrative Directive of the Superior Court, No. 2013-2 
(May 28, 2013) (providing that Administrative Directive No. 2009-3 remains in effect and 
governs foreclosure actions filed prior to the effective date of 10 Del. C. § 5602C) (available at 
http://courts.delaware.gov/Superior/pdf/Administrative_Directive_2013_2.pdf)).