JOHN P. McCAFFERTY and MELISSA A. McCAFFERTY, Defendants Below,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff Below, Appellee
Submitted September 22, 2014
Case Closed December 24, 2014.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Court Below--Superior Court Appellants, of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. C.A. No. N09L-10-243.
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY and VAUGHN, Justices.
Henry duPont Ridgely, Justice
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, 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 stipulated to a dismissal of the counterclaims after the parties determined that the claims were beyond the scope of the mortgage foreclosure action.
(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 ...