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.

PNC Bank, National Association v. Mueller

Superior Court of Delaware

February 12, 2019

PNC Bank, National Association
v.
Mueller,

          Submitted: December 20, 2018

          On Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment: GRANTED

          Craig A. Karsnitz Judge

         Dear Ms. Mueller and Counsel:

         Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff, PNC Bank, National Association, as successor in interest to PNC Bank, Delaware ("PNC"). At issue is the validity and enforceability of a guaranty executed by Ruihua Mueller ("Defendant") in connection with a loan PNC extended to Jerry Mueller Real Estate, Inc. ('JMRE"). For the following reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

         I. Factual Background

         On or about May 6, 2009, JMRE borrowed $100, 000.00 from PNC ("the Loan"). The Loan was memorialized by a Promissory Note dated May 6, 2009 ("the Note"). The Note is secured by a mortgage on certain property located in Frankford, Delaware, dated July 25, 2008, and recorded on September 15, 2008 ("the Mortgage"). In addition, the Note is secured by a Commercial Guaranty executed by Defendant and dated May 6, 2009 ("the Guaranty"). Pursuant to the Guaranty, Defendant agreed to the performance and discharge of all of JMRE's obligations under the Note. By way of the Guaranty, Defendant waived "any right to require [PNC] ... © to resort for payment or to proceed directly or at once against any person, including [JMRE] or any other guarantor; (D) to proceed directly against or exhaust any collateral held by [PNC] from [JMRE], any other guarantor, or any other person..."[1] The Loan, the Note, the Mortgage, and the Guaranty are hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Loan Documents."

         By PNC's allegation and Defendant's admission to the best of her knowledge, JMRE is in default of the Loan due to, at a minimum, its failure to pay all outstanding amounts when due under the Note.

         On June 20, 2017, Defendant entered into a forbearance agreement with PNC ("the Agreement"). In September of 2017, Defendant entered into an Amendment to the Agreement, which extended the forbearance period through October 6, 2017 ("the Amendment").

         PNC subsequently demanded payment for the amounts due under the Guarantee, the Agreement, and the Amendment. When Defendant failed to pay, PNC initiated suit. PNC now seeks summary judgment, asserting there are no issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The parties have briefed the issues and the Court heard oral argument today. The matter is now ripe for decision.

         II. Standard of Review

         This Court will grant summary judgment only when no material issues of fact exist, and the moving party bears the burden of establishing the non-existence of material issues of fact.[2] Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish the existence of material issues of fact.[3] Where the moving party produces an affidavit or other evidence sufficient under Superior Court Civil Rule 56 in support of its motion and the burden shifts, the non-moving party may not rest on its own pleadings, but must provide evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial.[4] If, after discovery, the non-moving party cannot make a sufficient showing of the existence of an essential element of his or her case, summary judgment must be granted.[5] If, however, material issues of fact exist, or if the Court determines that it does not have sufficient facts to enable it to apply the law to the facts before it, summary judgment is inappropriate.[6]

         III. Discussion

         Defendant is proceeding pro se and her answering brief lacks some clarity. The Court holds filings made by pro se litigants to a "somewhat less stringent technical standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers...."[7] Generally speaking, it appears to the Court that Defendant challenges PNC's Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that she is no longer bound by the Guaranty and that the amount claimed due is inaccurate. Specifically, Defendant alleges (a) it is PNC who breached its responsibilities under the Loan Documents, (b) she is not liable under the Guaranty, © the accounting on the amount due is incorrect, and (d) PNC was obligated to call the loan or remove her as a guarantor upon learning of her ...


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.