Court Opinion

ID: 9894974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 19:03:54.698119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:54.821753
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TRUIST BANK, formally known as                )
Branch Banking and Trust Company,             )
     Plaintiffs,                              )
                                              )      C.A. NO. N23C-02-243 DJB
             v.                               )
                                              )
JOSEPH B. ELAD,                               )
     Defendant.                               )

                               Submitted: October 30, 2023
                               Decided: November 3, 2023

                      ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S
                        WRIT OF HABEAUS CORPUS

       This 3rd day of November, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant’s “Writ
of Habeas Corpus”,1 it appears to the Court that:
    1. On September 8, 2021, this Court entered judgment against Defendant
Joseph B. Elad (“Defendant”) in a related foreclosure action.2    Defendant moved
to stay and vacate that judgment in on numerous occasions without success.3 On
March 8, 2022, the property in question was purchased at Sheriff Sale by Plaintiff.4
    2. After the conclusion of the Foreclosure Action, Defendant continued to
occupy the Property, prompting Plaintiff to file the instant Ejectment Action on
February 28, 2023.5
    3. Pending litigation of the ejectment action, Defendant filed the instant Writ of

1
  Truist Bank v. Elad, C.A. N23C-02-243 DJB, D.I. 30.
2
  N17L-06-100 EMD—D.I. 50, 53, 82.
3
  N17L-06-100 EMD—D.I. 53, 57, 59, 64, 73-74.
4
  N17L-06-100 EMD—D.I. 80.
5
  D.I. 1.
Habeas Corpus.
     4. Defendant’s Petition cites to numerous decisional case law, as well as many
federal statutes in support of his filing. In his filing, he asserts a claim for relief as
well as a jury trial demand. At no point in this filing does Defendant reference that
he is either held in custody or otherwise has standing to entitle himself to relief
under such a Writ.
     5. A Writ of Habeas Corpus provides limited relief and is available as “an
opportunity for one illegally confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of
the jurisdiction of the court ordering the commitment.”6
     6. Defendant is neither incarcerated or confined, therefore, he lacks standing
for such a petition. Further, this matter is an ejectment action, and this Writ is
nonresponsive to the matter before the Court.
     7. As a result, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
        IT SO ORDERED.

                                                   _____________________________
                                                      Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

Cc:     Counsel via File&Serve Express
        Joseph E. Elad (via United States Postal Service)

6
    Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888. 891 (Del. 1997).