M&T Bank v. Watkins
N16L-02-093 CLS
| Del. Super. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- M&T Bank filed a scire facias sur mortgage foreclosure complaint on Feb 15, 2016, against Robin Watkins for nonpayment on a mortgage for 22 Marble House Drive, Bear, DE.
- Watkins moved to dismiss; the Court denied that motion on Aug 25, 2016, holding the scire facias action was properly stated and many asserted defenses were not recognized in Delaware foreclosure law.
- A Final Mediation Record was entered on Oct 7, 2016; Watkins did not participate in the mandatory mediation program and later filed an "Affidavit of Life" the Court treated as an Answer.
- M&T moved for summary judgment on Apr 26, 2017; Watkins filed responses on May 25 and Jun 7, 2017.
- Plaintiff produced evidence of missed mortgage payments, proper notice of intent to foreclose, and that the loan was ineligible for loss mitigation due to Watkins’ failure to apply or complete required steps.
- The Court concluded Watkins’ filings did not assert any of the limited defenses recognized in Delaware (payment, satisfaction, avoidance) and no genuine issues of material fact existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate in this scire facias sur mortgage foreclosure action | M&T: No genuine issue of material fact; Watkins asserted no recognized foreclosure defenses; Plaintiff provided proof of default, notice, and loss-mitigation ineligibility | Watkins: Challenged foreclosure generally (moved to dismiss earlier; later filings including "Affidavit of Life"); did not plead Delaware-recognized defenses | Summary judgment granted for M&T; Watkins’ submissions did not raise payment, satisfaction, or avoidance or any triable issue |
| Whether defenses outside payment, satisfaction, or avoidance may defeat foreclosure | M&T: Only those mortgage-related defenses recognized by Delaware can defend a scire facias sur mortgage action | Watkins: Asserted other non-mortgage defenses earlier (rejected by Court at motion to dismiss) | Court reaffirmed Delaware limits on defenses; only payment, satisfaction, or avoidance are recognized and none were shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (summary-judgment standard and viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Wootten v. Kiger, 226 A.2d 238 (Del. 1967) (when facts permit only one inference, issue becomes a question of law)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party must show evidence on an essential element to avoid summary judgment)