Banc of America Funding Corporation 2007-3, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee v. James Coppedge

IN THE SUPERIORCOURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING )
CORPORATION 2007-3, U.S. )
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, )
AS TRUSTEE ) C.A. No.: K24M-03-017 RLG
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
JAMES COPPEDGE AND )
KRISHNA JOHNSON )
)
Defendants. )
Submitted: August 1, 2024
Decided: August 6, 2024
ORDER
Upon Defendants’ Petition to Stay Proceeding Due to Appeal – DENIED.
Melanie J. Thompson, Esquire and Darlene Wyatt Blythe, Esquire, Orlans PC,
Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
James Coppedge and Krishna Johnson, Pro Se Defendants.
GREEN-STREETT, J.
1
On July 23, 2024, Defendants James Coppedge and Krisha Johnson filed a
“Petition to Stay the Proceeding Due to Appeals; Pursuant to Rule 62.”1 Defendants
object to the Court granting Plaintiff Banc of America Funding’s Writ of Possession
regarding the property located at 52 Barkley Court, Dover, DE 19904 (the
“Property”).2 As Defendants’ petition lacks any merit, their petition is DENIED.
I. Background
American Home Mortgage (“AHM”) initially obtained judgment granting
foreclosure on the Property on September 15, 2011.3 The Delaware Supreme Court
denied Defendants’ appeal of that judgment, stating “[i]t is manifest on the face of
the opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on
appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law.”4 Defendants filed for bankruptcy,
leading to a stay of the sheriff’s sale pending the resolution of that filing. 5 After
dismissal of the bankruptcy filing, AHM reinitiated the sale process.6 Defendants
1
D.I. 19 (Jul. 23, 2024).
2
See D.I. 1 (Mar. 13, 2024).
3
See Coppedge v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 35 A.3d 418 (Del. 2011) (TABLE) (“Coppedge 1”).
4
Id.5
Coppedge v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 103 A.3d 514 (Del. 2014) (TABLE) (“Coppedge 2”).
6
Id.2
filed a motion requesting a stay of any sale of the property.7 This Court denied that
request, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision.8
Since that decision, Defendants have filed approximately fourteen motions
asking this Court to reconsider.9 Those requests have been denied. Plaintiff acquired
the Property via sheriff’s sale on October 3, 2019.10 Defendants have remained on
the Property since October 3, 2019.11 This Court granted Plaintiff’s Writ of
Possession on May 24, 2024, but stayed execution of that order for 90 days to allow
Defendants time to make any necessary arrangements.12 Defendants responded by
filing the instant motion.13
7
Id.8
Id.9
See generally Case No.: K11L-02-042 NEP D.I. 53 (Defs.’ Mot. to Void J., Apr. 10, 2015); D.I.
56 (Defs.’ “Motion to Void Judgement [sic] Notice of Fault Opportunity to Cure [sic],” Apr. 21,
2015); D.I. 62 (Defs.’ “Notice of Appeal to the United States Supreme Court Washington DC
Supreme Court of DE [sic],” Apr. 24, 2015); D.I. 66 (Defs.’ Mot. for Reconsideration, Apr. 30,
2015); D.I. 75 (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, Jul. 13, 2015); D.I. 82 (Defs.’ Mot. to Quash, Feb. 23,
2016); D.I. 101 (Defs.’ Mot. for Reconsideration and Stay of Proceedings, Jul. 25, 2017); D.I. 104
(Defs.’ “Motion to Open Case Part 2 to Show Cause Why the Case must be Re-Opened with
Petition to Dismiss [sic],” Aug. 3, 2017); D.I. 107 (Defs.’ “Motion to Stay Proceeding to Enforce
a Judgment Pending an Appeal to the Supreme Court,” Oct. 27, 2017); D.I. 123 (Defs.’ Mot. to
Vacate Void Judgment, Sep. 10, 2019); D.I. 137 (Defs.’ Letter to the Court, Sep. 17, 2019); D.I.
140 (Defs.’ “Affidavit of Negative Argument,” Sep. 24, 2019); D.I. 150 (Defs.’ “Motion for
Extraordinary Emergency Relief for Stay of the Proceedings,” Sep. 26, 2019); D.I. 160 (Defs.’
“Motion for Reconsideration to Dismiss Sheriff’s Sale,” Oct. 8, 2019).
10
Petition for Writ of Possession, D.I. 1 (Mar. 13, 2024).
11
Id.12
D.I. 13 (May 24, 2024).
13
D.I. 19.
3
II. Standard of Review
Superior Court Civil Rule 62 controls motions to stay judgment pending
appeal.14 This Court must engage in a four-prong analysis to decide if the motion to
stay should be granted.15 The Court should: (1) “make a preliminary assessment of
the likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal;” (2) “assess whether the
petitioner will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is not granted;” (3) “assess whether
any other interested party will suffer substantial harm if the stay is granted;” and (4)
“determine whether the public interest will be harmed if the stay is granted.” 16 If
factors two, three, and four “strongly favor interim relief, the Court may grant a stay
provided the petitioner “has presented a serious legal question that raises a fair
ground for litigation[,] and thus for more deliberative investigation.”17
III. Analysis
A. Defendants’ appeal is unlikely to succeed on the merits
The Court finds Defendants’ appeal unlikely to succeed. Defendants list seven
arguments in their petition, but fail to support any of those arguments with facts or
14
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Banning, 2022 WL 4102233, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 7, 2022).
15
Id. (citing Travelers Bank & Trust FSB v. Hayford, 2007 WL 3105753, at *1 (Del. Super. July
10, 2007)).
16
Id. (citing Travelers Bank, 2007 WL 3105753, at *1).
17
Kirpat, Inc. v. Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm’n, 741 A.2d 356, 358 (Del. 1998)
(internal quotations omitted) (quoting Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours,
Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).
4
legal authority. Instead, Defendants make conclusory statements and assert that
Plaintiff’s silence regarding an undocketed letter, allegedly filed on July 5, 2024,
constitutes Plaintiff’s “default and dishonor.”18 These statements appear to be
similar to the “disjointed”19 and “confusing”20 claims Defendants advanced in prior
appeals. As the Court cannot discern any meritorious arguments from Defendants’
filings, it must conclude Defendants are unlikely to succeed on appeal.
B. Defendants have presented no evidence that they will suffer
irreparable injury, any other interested party will suffer substantial
harm, nor that the public interest will be harmed
The Court finds that Defendants cannot satisfy any of the remaining three
prongs of the applicable test. Turning to the second prong of the Court’s analysis,
Defendants have failed to show they will suffer irreparable harm should the Court
deny their request for a stay. Defendants posit “[t]he unlawful cancellation of the
Automatic Stay [sic] on [the Property] has caused me much hardship. I am left
confused about many issues.”21 Defendants do not, however, elaborate on what
hardship they have suffered or what issues form the basis of their confusion.
Defendants, similarly, fail to show any other interested parties who will suffer
18
D.I. 19 at 1-2.
19
Coppedge 1 at 418.
20
Coppedge 2 at 514.
21
D.I. 19 at 1.
5
substantial harm. Lastly, as to the fourth prong, Defendants have failed to show any
public interest will be harmed by the Court’s denial of the stay. The Court has
already granted Defendants a 90-day stay of execution to allow them time to
organize their affairs.22 That stay remains in place, and assuages any allegations of
Defendants suffering irreparable harm by the Court’s denial of the instant motion.
IV. Conclusion
Defendants are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. Defendants
failed to show any irreparable harm they, the public, or any third party will suffer if
a stay is not granted. As none of the four prongs weigh in favor of granting a stay,
Defendant’s “Petition to Stay the Proceeding Due to Appeals; Pursuant to Rule 62”
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
See D.I. 14 (the Court notes this stay spans from May 22, 2024 to August 20, 2024. Defendants
filed their Petition to Stay the Proceeding on July 23, 2024).
6