Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dicks v. Delaware Acceptance Corp.

Court of Common Pleas of Delaware, New Castle

February 18, 2014

SHERRI R. DICKS, Defendant-Below/Appellant,
v.
DELAWARE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Below/Appellee.

Submitted: January 24, 2014

Elwood T. Eveland, Jr., Esquire, Attorney for Appellant

Patrick Scanlon, Esquire, Attorney for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Honorable Alex J. Smalls Chief Judge

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is an appeal from the Justice of the Peace Court. On April 9, 2010, Delaware Acceptance Corporation (hereinafter "DAC") filed a Complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court against Defendant, Sherri R. Dicks (hereinafter "Dicks"), alleging that Ms. Dicks entered into a credit card agreement with Chase Manhattan Bank (hereinafter "Chase Manhattan"), whereby Chase Manhattan issued Ms. Dicks a credit card with an account number ending in 5749. The account was allegedly assigned to Vion Holdings, LLC (hereinafter "Vion Holdings"), then to Portfolio Investment Exchange, Inc. (hereinafter "Portfolio Investment"), and finally to DAC. DAC claims Ms. Dicks defaulted on the account, and DAC, as assignee of the account, seeks damages in the amount of $8, 002.49. DAC also seeks court costs and post-judgment interest at the legal rate. On March 16, 2011, trial was held, and on April 13, 2011, the Honorable Robert C. Lopez issued a decision in favor of DAC in the amount of $8, 002.49 plus pre-judgment interest of $1, 571.17, court costs of $40.50, and post-judgment interest at a rate of 9.75%.

On April 27, 2011, following the Justice of the Peace decision, Ms. Dicks appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. Ms. Dicks denies the debt and default thereon. She also brings a Counterclaim against DAC for falsely representing the amount of the debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692(e)(2). The Counterclaim was dismissed on December 9, 2011. This Court previously denied DAC's Motions for Summary Judgment on May 3, 2012, on the basis that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the actual owner of the account.[1]

On September 10, 2013, DAC brings this Motion for Summary Judgment. DAC allege it did provide sufficient documentation to support a finding that DAC is the assignee of the account, and therefore, is entitled to judgment on the proceedings.[2]

On November 15, 2013, the Court held a hearing on DAC's Motion. The Court ordered both attorneys to submit supporting arguments regarding the assignment and validity of the debt.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

DAC contends that it is entitled to Summary Judgment because there exists no genuine issue of material fact regarding Ms. Dicks' account. Ms. Dicks has previously admitted to the existence of the account, admitted that she made charges on the account, and that a balance still remains due on the account.

Ms. Dicks contends that Summary Judgment should be denied because DAC has failed to show that it is the actual owner of the account. Ms. Dicks asserts that the documents upon which DAC bases its arguments to establish ownership do not contain specific detail sufficient to identify which accounts were bought and sold to the various purchasers in this matter, and therefore DAC cannot conclusively establish its ownership.

DAC counters Ms. Dicks' ownership argument by alleging that it has provided a chain of title, affidavits, and documents supporting its position that it is the proper owner of the account. DAC contends that the affidavits are not hearsay, as the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.