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.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hinkle

Superior Court of Delaware

August 1, 2017

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
RUSSELL K. HINKLE, Defendant.

          Submitted: July 18, 2017

         Upon Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment: GRANTED.

          Russell K. Hinkle, pro se, Defendant.

          Lisa Keil Cartwright, Esquire, Atlantic Law Group, LLC, Attorney for Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

          ORDER

          Ferris W. Wharton, J.

         This 1st day of August 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("Plaintiff) Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Russell K. Hinkle's ("Defendant") Response, argument on June 27, 2017, and Plaintiffs Supplement to the Motion, it appears to the Court that:

         1. On May 7, 2009, Defendant executed and delivered a mortgage securing a promissory note to Mortgage America, Inc. for real property located in Wilmington, Delaware. Mortgage America, Inc., for valuable consideration, duly assigned its entire interest in the mortgage to Plaintiff.

         2. Defendant defaulted on the loan by failing to pay the monthly installments of the mortgage. The mortgage permits Plaintiff to accelerate the sum secured by the mortgage and foreclose on the property for the collection of the debt owed. Defendant was given proper notice and the opportunity to cure the default, but Defendant failed to do so.

         3. On August 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a scire facias sur mortgage action against Defendant.

         4. The parties participated in mandatory mediation on December 21, 2016. Mediation was unsuccessful because the parties failed to come to an agreement. Specifically, the mediation report states that the "borrower does not wish to participate in the program and wishes to pursue his own legal action."[1]

         5. On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"). Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to plead one of the limited allowable defenses to a scire facias sur mortgage action.[2] Moreover, Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact.[3]

         6. On April 10, 2017, Defendant filed his response to Plaintiffs Motion. Defendant argues Plaintiff "has failed to produce [the] Original Wet Signature note signed by me on the day of my purchase of 312 Mattes Avenue. Wells Fargo does not hold the original documents. Therefore Wells Fargo does not have legal standing to foreclose on my home 312 Matthes Avenue."[4] Additionally, Defendant argues Plaintiff never informed him that it was going to securitize his loan.[5] Defendant states that "it is [his] understanding that in order to securitize a loan that loan must first be paid off."[6]

         7. The Court scheduled oral argument on June 27, 2017. Plaintiffs counsel appeared before the Court, but Defendant did not. The Court ordered Plaintiffs counsel to file a supplement to the Motion to include the promissory note in light of the Delaware Supreme Court's recent decision in Shrewsbury v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon.[7]

         8. On June 27, 2017, Plaintiff supplemented the Motion by providing the promissory note. By letter dated June 27, 2017, the Court notified Defendant that he was able to respond to Plaintiffs ...


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.