Court Opinion

ID: 9906084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 21:03:37.200348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:05.546558
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

AJAX MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST                     )
2019-G, MORTGAGE BACKED                      )
SECURITIES SERIES 2019-G, BY                 )
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION               )
AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE,                        )
                                             )
         Plaintiff,                          )
                                             )
         v.                                  )      C.A. No. N22L-04-063 SPL
                                             )
DOUGLAS R. COUDEN and                        )
MEGAN L. COUDEN,                             )
                                             )
         Defendants.                         )

                           Submitted: September 26, 2023
                            Decided: November 30, 2023

                           Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for
                                Summary Judgment
                                   GRANTED

                                      ORDER

         This 30th day of November 2023, upon consideration of Plaintiff Ajax

Mortgage Loan Trust’s (“Ajax”) Motion for Summary Judgment1 and Defendants

Douglas R. Couden’s and Megan L. Couden’s (“the Coudens”) responses thereto,2

it appears to the Court that:

1
    D.I. 11.
2
    D.I. 19.

                                         1
         1.    On June 28, 2007, the Coudens executed a mortgage on the property

known as 118 Bartley Drive, Newark, Delaware 19702 (Tax Parcel No. 11-016.40-

018).3 The mortgage and note, originally held by Chase Bank, following a series of

transfers are, as of May 14, 2020, held by Ajax.4

         2.    The Coudens negotiated modifications to the loan agreement to include

“unpaid interest [in] the principal balance of the loan and [to set] a new payment on

the combined amounts.”5 The Coudens defaulted on their obligation by failing to

pay monthly installments when due.

         3.    On April 26, 2022, Ajax filed a scire facias sur mortgage complaint

against the Coudens seeking judgment on the mortgage.6

         4.    On May 23, 2022, the Coudens answered Ajax’s complaint asserting

that they “have no knowledge of Petitioner Ajax Mortgage Loan Trust.”7

         5.    Mortgage Mediation failed.8     In the September 11, 2022, Final

Mediation Record, the mediator noted that the Coudens failed to submit materials in

accordance with the mediation schedule and, as a result, the Coudens “will not stay

3
    Compl. (D.I. 1) at ¶ 5.
4
    Id.; Ex. F to Compl.; Amend. Exh. B to Mot. Summ. J. (D.I. 24).
5
    Compl. at ¶ 8.
6
    Compl. at 3.
7
    D.I. 7.
8
    Final Mediation Record (D.I. 10).

                                          2
in home because foreclosure will proceed.”9

          6.    On September 21, 2022, Ajax moved for summary judgment asserting

that “[t]here is no triable issue as to any material fact in this case because there is

ample evidence to show that a debt secured by a mortgage existed between [Ajax]

and [the Coudens] and, by not performing, [the Coudens are] in breach of the terms

of the mortgage.”10 Further, Ajax contends that the Coudens “have not demonstrated

any good-faith dispute of the allegations set forth in the complaint[, and] . . . have

not pled any of the allowable defenses to a scire facias action[,] and [have] not

offered any allowable justification for the failure to pay the unpaid balance owed to

[Ajax].”11

          7.    The Court directed the Coudens to respond to Ajax’s Motion for

Summary Judgment by November 4, 2022.12 At the Couden’s request, the Court

extended their response deadline to December 19, 2022.13 And, when the Coudens’

requested more time to retain counsel, the Court extended their deadline to respond

to January 31, 2023.14 The Coudens chose not to retain counsel and, on February 1,

9
    Id.
10
     Mot. Summ. J. (D.I. 11) at ¶ 17.
11
     Id. at ¶ 18.
12
     D.I. 12.
13
     D.I. 15.
14
     D.I. 18.

                                          3
2023, the Court docketed the Couden’s January 31, 2023 response to the Motion for

Summary Judgment.15

           8.      In their response, the Coudens argued that they were unaware of Ajax’s

acquisition of their mortgage and note.16 Further, they asserted that their mortgage

“disappeared” and that they “were advised it had been paid off.”17 Ultimately, they

posited that they “never heard or had knowledge of [Ajax] or their claims.”18

           9.      On August 11, 2023, the Court heard argument on the Motion for

Summary Judgment.19 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court invited the

Coudens to submit any additional documentation by September 15, 2023, and

permitted Ajax to respond by September 29, 2023.20

           10.     The Coudens submitted a supplemental letter and documents in

opposition to Ajax’s Motion for Summary Judgment.21 The Coudens acknowledge

that “clarification has been obtained,” they recognize their financial obligation, and

they now seek to negotiate with Ajax.22 At no time during these proceedings have

15
     D.I. 19.
16
     Resp. Mot. Summ. J. (D.I. 19) at ¶¶ 2, 3.
17
     Id. at ¶ 5.
18
     Id. at ¶ 10.
19
     D.I. 25.
20
     Id.
21
     D.I. 26.
22
     D.I. 26 at 2.

                                               4
the Coundens asserted that they made any payments on the mortgage; their

nonpayment is not in dispute.

           11.   Ajax replied, arguing that “[j]udgment should be awarded in [Ajax’s]

favor given the evidence shown and the lack of evidence provided by [the Coudens]

as there is no material issue of fact left in dispute.”23 Ajax also noted that the

Coudens are “certainly free to pursue loss mitigation options with [Ajax], and an

application has been provided to them to begin that process.”24

           12.   Under Superior Court Civil Rule 56, summary judgment will be granted

where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”25

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that the undisputed facts

support claims or defenses.26 If the motion is properly supported, then the burden

shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate that there are material issues of fact

for the resolution by the ultimate fact-finder.27 Ajax has satisfied its burden and is

23
     D.I. 27 at 3.
24
     Id.
25
     Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c).
26
  Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1970) (citing Ebersole v. Lowengrub,
180 A.2d 467 (Del. Super. Ct. 1962)).
27
     See Brzoska v. Olsen, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995).

                                            5
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

         13.     Title 10, Section 5061 of the Delaware Code provides:

         [U]pon breach of the condition of a mortgage of real estate by
         nonpayment of the mortgage money or nonperformance of the
         condition stipulated in such mortgage at the time and in the manner
         therein provided the mortgagee, the mortgagee’s heirs, executors,
         administrators, successors or assigns may, at any time after the last day
         whereon the mortgage money ought to have been paid or other
         conditions performed, sue out of the Superior Court of the county
         wherein the mortgage premises are situated a writ of scire facias upon
         such mortgage directed to the sheriff of the county commanding the
         sheriff to make known to the mortgagor, and those persons described
         in subsection (b) of this section and such mortgagor's heirs, executors,
         administrators or successors that the mortgagor or they appear before
         the Court to show cause, if there is any, why the mortgaged premises
         ought not to be seized and taken in execution for payment of the
         mortgage money with interest or to satisfy the damages which the
         plaintiff in such scire facias shall, upon the record, suggest for the
         nonperformance of the conditions.28

         14.   The Coudens offer no defense to Ajax’s pursuit of the remedies

available under the statute.       Rather, they acknowledge the existence of their

obligation and concede nonpayment.

         15.   The Coudens have chosen to represent themselves in this proceeding.

The Court is mindful of the challenges faced by self-represented litigants, but it

cannot “sacrifice the orderly and efficient administration of justice to accommodate

28
     10 Del. C. § 5061(a).

                                            6
the unrepresented plaintiff”29 or impair “the substantive rights of those parties

involved in the case at bar.”30 The Court granted the Coudens’ requests for more

time to respond Ajax’s motion, additional time to seek counsel, and additional time

to supplement their answer. When afforded the opportunity to engage in mortgage

mediation, the Coudens nominally participated and, importantly, failed to provide

documents to assist in that process. Not until pressed by the Court during the August

2023 hearing on Ajax’s motion did the Coudens independently investigate their

obligation and determine that, in fact, their obligation remained. The Court has

endeavored to afford the Coudens every opportunity to investigate and defend this

action. No defense is offered, and no material fact is in dispute.

         For the foregoing reasons, there exists no genuine issue of material fact and

Ajax’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

                                               IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                               ____________________________
                                               Sean P. Lugg, Judge

29
  Damiani v. Gill, 2015 WL 4351507, at *1 (Del. July 15, 2015) (quoting Draper,
767 A.2d at 799); see also Sloan v. Segal, 2008 WL 81513, at *7 (Del. Ch. Jan. 3,
2008) (cleaned up) (“[S]elf representation is not a blank check for defect.”).
30
     Alston v. State, 2002 WL 184247, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 28, 2002).

                                           7