Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Patel

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND )
SOCIETY, FSB, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) C.A. No.: N13J-04-323 ALR
VANJYOTSNA PATEL, DILIP )
PATEL, PRAVEEN PATEL and )
JYOTI PATEL, )
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED JANUARY 9, 2015 – AFFIRMED
WRIT OF EXECUTION – GRANTED
Submitted: February 16, 2015
Decided: February 23, 2015
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Objection to the
Commissioner’s Order dated January 9, 2015 by which the Commissioner granted
Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice of Execution. Upon consideration of Defendant’s
objection and Plaintiff’s opposition thereto and the entire record before the Court,
the Court finds as follows:
1. Under Superior Court Civil Rule 132, 1 Commissioners have the power to
conduct both dispositive and non-dispositive hearings and to make certain
1
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(3) & (4).
pre-trial determinations and recommendations. 2 The fundamental nature of
the subject matter under review—dispositive or non-dispositive—dictates
the degree of deference a judge must give to such a determination. 3 Upon
review of a Commissioner’s case-dispositive determination, a judge engages
in a de novo review. 4 For such case-dispositive determinations, therefore,
the Commissioner’s disposition acts as proposed findings of fact and
recommendations and the judge makes a de novo determination of those
specified portions, proposed findings of fact, or recommendations to which
an objection is made. 5 For non case-dispositive matters, by contrast, the
Commissioner’s order is reconsidered by a judge only “where [it] has been
shown on the record” that the order is “based upon findings of fact that are
clearly erroneous, or [] contrary to law, or [] an abuse of discretion.” 6
2. This case was filed as a judgment action, on which Plaintiff sought to
execute. On December 22, 2014, an evidentiary hearing was held to
consider Plaintiff’s request for a writ to execute on the deficiency judgment.
2
New Castle County v. Kostyshyn, 2014 WL 1347745, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. April 4,
2014).
3
Id.
4
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(4)(iv).
5
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(4)(ii).
6
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(3)(ii) & (iv).
2
3. Effectively, the Commissioner’s Order will be case-dispositive. Regardless
of the standard of review, however, the Commissioner’s Order must be
affirmed.
4. The Commissioner found that, based on the clear language of the guaranties
in this case, Defendants have contractually agreed to pay the deficiency
judgment and agreed to waive any rights or defenses to contest this action.
Furthermore, Defendants cannot collaterally attack the value associated with
the Property recovered at the sale based on the principal of res judicata.
5. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to collect the deficiency from Defendants.
The Commissioner’s decision was correct, and must be upheld whether a de
novo review is applied or a limited review is applied.
6. The Commissioner was correct in granting Plaintiff a writ of execution in
this case and no argument asserted by the Defendants warrants a different
result by this Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, this 23rd day of February 2015, the Objections of
Defendants are OVERRULED; the Order of the Commissioner dated
January 9, 2015 is hereby AFFIRMED; and the WRIT of EXCUTION is
3
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
_____________________________
Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
4