Citifinancial Mortgage Co., f/k/a Associates Home Equity Services v. Edge.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY CITIFINANCIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, f/k/a ASSOCIATES HOME EQUITY SERVICES, successor by reason of merger with AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES OF DOVER, INC., Plaintiff, v. THOMAS B. EDGE and TAMMY L. EDGE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 02L-02-011 JTV Submitted: December 10, 2003 Decided: March 8, 2004 Janet Z. Charlton, Esq. Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Plaintiff. Dominic J. Balascio, Esq., Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, Dover, Delaware. Attorney for Defendants. Upon Consideration of Defendant s Motion For Reargument DENIED VAUGHN, Resident Judge Citifinancial v. Edge C.A. No. 02L-02-011 JTV March 8, 2004 ORDER Upon consideration of the defendants motion for reargument, the plaintiff s opposition, and the record of the case, it appears that: 1. This is a mortgage foreclosure action. At a Sheriff s sale held on September 5, 2002, the plaintiff, Citifinancial Mortgage Company ( Citifinancial ), the foreclosing mortgagee, bid the property in for $55,000, the only bid made. The full amount of the mortgage debt and costs, however, was only $40,533.03. The sale was duly confirmed as a matter of course without objection. An appraisal done by Citifinancial shortly after the sale showed that the fair market value of the property was approximately $15,000. Citifinancial sold the property November 15, 2002 for that sum, thus taking a significant loss on the debt. On November 6, 2002, shortly before that sale, the defendants informed the plaintiff that its bid price created a surplus of almost $15,000 ($55,000 minus $40,533.03), which they expected Citifinancial to pay to them. 2. Citifinancial refused to do so and filed a motion to correct the bid price and Sheriff s return to show a bid of $40,533.03. The defendants filed a motion to compel Citifinancial to pay the surplus. In an opinion dated November 12, 2003, the Court denied the defendants motion and granted the plaintiff s motion.1 3. In that opinion, the Court noted that the Superior Court has broad, equitable power to control judicial sales to protect parties from injustice.2 The 1 Citifinancial Mortgage Co. v. Edge, 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 371 (Del. Super. 2003). 2 Id.; Burge v. Fidelity Bond and Mortgage Company, 648 A.2d 414 (Del. 1994). 2 Citifinancial v. Edge C.A. No. 02L-02-011 JTV March 8, 2004 Court reasoned that this power included the authority to grant relief from a confirmed Sheriff s sale where necessary to avoid injustice because of mistake or other just cause. The Court concluded that the decision to bid $55,000, rather than $40,533.03, was an error in bidding instructions. The Court further concluded that a result which required Citifinancial to pay the defendants a surplus of approximately $15,000 because of this error would clearly be unjust. 4. The defendants have now filed a motion for reargument. 5. Under Delaware law, reargument will usually be denied unless it is shown that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts such as would affect the outcome of the decision. 3 A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court. 4 6. In their motion for reargument, the defendants reargue some contentions made when the motions were originally considered. They also add new ones. The reargued contentions are that Citifinancial waived any right to relief by not acting prior to confirmation; that Citifinancial s failure to move for relief prior to confirmation constituted unexcused delay; that the Court s power to set aside a Sheriff s sale is limited to the period before confirmation occurs; that Citifinancial s 3 Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Cas. And Sur. Co., Del. Super., C.A. 88-JA-118, Mem. Op. At 2, Ridgely, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994) (quoting Wilshire Restaurant Group, Inc. v. Ramada, Inc., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 11506, Let Op. At 2, Jacobs, V.C. (Dec. 1990)). 4 McElroy v. Shell Petroleum, Inc., 1992 Del. LEXIS 449. 3 Citifinancial v. Edge C.A. No. 02L-02-011 JTV March 8, 2004 problem was the result of its own avoidable, unilateral mistake; that Citifinancial had unclean hands; and that the Court failed to have the plaintiff account for and return $3,936.75 paid during foreclosure by the defendants. 7. As to this last contention, neither the defendants original motion nor their motion for reargument seem to contain any particularized reason as to why the sum of $3,936.75 should be repaid. The Court does not perceive any legal basis for requiring Citifinancial to return that sum. It is not entirely clear to the Court whether the $3,936.75 referred to is credited into the amount of the judgment, or not. Although the plaintiff moved to have its bid corrected to reflect the full amount owed on the mortgage, which, at least arguably, legally erased the debt, in fact a substantial balance on the debt has gone unpaid. Under these circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that the plaintiff should be required to return $3,936.75 or any other amount paid on the debt during foreclosure. The other rearguments submitted by the defendants were duly considered and addressed in the Court s November 12, 2003 decision. No grounds for granting reargument exists as to these restated contentions. 8. The defendants also assert new arguments, to-wit: that the Court applied the wrong standard of review by applying a summary judgment standard to the cross-motions; that the Court should have applied a preponderance of the evidence standard; that the integrity of the entire Sheriff s sale process will be compromised because an otherwise open and fair bidding process will be frustrated by allowing disgruntled bidders, who later discover that they overvalued the property sold, to mount successful challenges to the Sheriff s sale ; and that the 4 Citifinancial v. Edge C.A. No. 02L-02-011 JTV March 8, 2004 Court s reliance on the appraised value is misplaced and a bidder assumes the risk of value. 9. The value of the property had nothing to do with the Sheriff s sale in this case and had no bearing on Citifinancial s conduct in connection with the Sheriff s sale. It is relevant only because it is one of the factors which explains why it is unreasonable and unjust to expect Citifinancial to pay money to the defendants. After carefully reviewing the defendants new arguments, the Court concludes that none of them satisfy the standard for reargument set forth in paragraph five above. 10. Therefore, the defendants motion for reargument is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ Resident Judge oc: cc: Prothonotary Order Distribution File 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
