Submitted: July 26, 2018
Parcel No. 073540234, Sci. Fa. Sur Mortgage Action
Defendant Michelle R. Ievoli's Request for Continuance of
Stay On Writ of Possession DENIED.
N. Miller, Esquire, McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C.,
Attorney for Plaintiff.
Michelle R. Ievoli, pro se Defendant.
L. Scott, Jr., Judge
action arises from a scire facias sur mortgage
action. Plaintiff Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA)
filed the action against Michelle Ievoli (Ievoli) in 2015.
The property was sold at Sheriff's Sale in December 2017.
and Procedural Background
facts pertinent to Defendant's request are as follows.
DSHA initiated foreclosure on Defendant's home in 2015. A
final judgment in favor of DSHA was entered in this action on
September 25, 2017. Ievoli did not appeal that judgment. A
Sheriff's Sale of the home was completed in December 2017
and confirmed in January 2018. DSHA was the winning bidder at
the sale, and the Sheriff's Deed was recorded in February
2018. DSHA then sought and was granted a Writ of Possession
on May 29, 2018, with no action to be taken for 60 days. Also
on May 29, 2018, Ievoli filed a pro se complaint in
this Court claiming Negligence on the part of DSHA related to
the mortgage of the property. At the same time of filing the
complaint Ievoli requested a stay on the writ of possession.
This request was denied. Ievoli's Negligence action seeks
monetary damages including lost wages, medical bills, damage
to her creditworthiness, and legal costs.
filed this emergency request seeking a continuance of the
stay on the Writ of Possession pending adjudication of a
negligence action. Ievoli's civil suit alleges DSHA was
negligent in its selection and supervision of Bank of America
(BOA) as a mortgaging servicer. Ievoli highlights newspaper
articles and judgments against BOA as proof DSHA had notice
of questionable practices ongoing with BOA's mortgage
business. Ievoli asserts that DSHA owed a duty to "stop
ongoing illegal actions." Ievoli's complaint, in brief,
seeks to hold DSHA liable for the actions of its
argues the Court has previously denied a stay on this Writ of
Possession. DSHA urges that under the four-prong test adopted
by this Court and the Delaware Supreme Court Ievoli's
motion fails and should be denied. DSHA argues there is
little chance of success on the merits for Ievoli's
complaint. DSHA argues that Ievoli's complaint is
procedurally barred by the statute of limitations, res
judicata, and collateral estoppel. As to the merits of the
complaint, DSHA argues Ievoli's complaint fails to show
DSHA owed a duty of care to Ievoli.
urges that as the complaint seeks only monetary damages there
is no chance of irrevocable injury should the stay be denied.
DSHA points to the final adjudication of this matter as
evidence Ievoli will not be injured. DSHA claims they are now
the owners of the property, and as such they are entitled to
possession. DSHA argues that even if successful on the
merits, Ievoli's award would be monetary and independent
from the result of this action.
claims they will continue to suffer substantial harm if the
stay is granted. DSHA indicates they continue to be
financially liable for the ...