Denilia Francis v. Ocwen Financial Services, Inc.

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY-REEVES Leonard L. Williams Justice Center
VICE CHANCELLOR 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3734
October 19, 2016
Denilia Francis Ocwen Financial Services, Inc.
9 Guenever Drive 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100
New Castle, DE 19720 West Palm Beach, FL 33409
RE: Denilia Francis v. Ocwen Financial Services, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 12661-VCMR
Dear Litigants:
On August 9, 2016, the Register in Chancery received Plaintiff’s petition
(the “Petition”) for a temporary restraining order and injunction against Ocwen
Financial Services (“Ocwen”), which sought to prohibit Ocwen from foreclosing
upon Plaintiff’s property at 9 Guenever Drive, New Castle, Delaware, 19720. On
August 15, 2016, Master Zurn issued a Letter Decision and Order, which granted
the application for in forma pauperis, but dismissed the Petition as legally
frivolous. Neither party took exception to the Letter Decision and Order within
eleven days of the date of the report, as required under Court of Chancery Rule
144. On September 9, 2016, the Letter Decision and Order was approved and
adopted on by Chancellor Bouchard.
Francis v. Ocwen
C.A. No. 12661-VCMR
October 19, 2016
Page 2 of 3
On September 13, 2016, the Register in Chancery received a letter from
Plaintiff to Master Zurn. Plaintiff stated that she did not understand Master Zurn’s
ruling, asked thirteen questions,1 requested that Master Zurn “reconsider [her]
position,” stated “[t]he FDCPA has rules concerning debt collectors and creditors.
Ocwen is a debt collector acting outside of their capacity.[sic] (legally) by law,”
and pointed Master Zurn to “Exhibit A,” which is a June 15, 2016 letter from
Ocwen to Plaintiff.
The purpose of Plaintiff’s September 13, 2016 letter is unclear. To the
extent that it purports to take exceptions to Master Zurn’s Letter Decision and
Order, I note that it is untimely under Rule 144. Regardless, a hearing is
unnecessary. I have conducted a de novo review of the rulings in the Letter
Decision and Order. See DiGiacobbe v. Sestak, 743 A.2d 180, 184 (Del. 1999). I
1
The September 13, 2016 asks the following questions. 1) “What is frivolous?” 2)
“Are you complicit to the greed, corruption and fraud of so called debt
collectors?” 3) “How can you provide proof that Ocwen Financial has received
hardship?” 4) “Is not being threatened to be evicted not irreparable harm?” 5)
“What is equity? Any must be shown by whom?” 6) “Is being served by Sherriff
not a pending of a thing or type of action?” 7) “Is asserting my rights and staying
in honor not good faith?” 8) “Are you perpetuating fraud that has plagued this
society for centuries to continue?” 9) “Can you explain rule 144? I am not a
legalese expert.” 10) “Are you not to exercise ordinary care?” 11) “Can a debt
collector collect on a debt that was discharged in Bankruptcy?” 12) “How can a
debt collector have a lien on property?” 13) “What and how can a debt collector
claim rights which were never theirs?”
Francis v. Ocwen
C.A. No. 12661-VCMR
October 19, 2016
Page 3 of 3
agree with the analysis conducted in the Letter Decision and Order and adopt it as
a decision of this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Tamika Montgomery-Reeves
Vice Chancellor
TMR/jp