Wachovia Mortgage, FSB v. Ramunno, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
N THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, A Federal Savings Bank organized And existing under the laws of the United States of America, Plaintiff, v. LEO JOHN RAMUNNO, KATHLEEN RENEE RAMUNNO, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. N10L-02-074 Tax Parcel No. 07-029.00-008 In Rem Action Scire Facias Sur Mortgage Mortgage Record: No. 20080604-0038782 ORDER AND NOW, TO WIT, this 28th day of June 2011, Plaintiff s Motion for Default Judgment and the opposition thereto having been duly heard and considered; IT APPEARS TO THE COURT THAT: 1. On May 22, 2008, Defendant Leo John Ramunno ( Mr. Ramunno ) executed a mortgage, with Wachovia Mortgage, FSB ( Wachovia ) as mortgagor, against his residence, recorded in Instrument No. 20080604-003872. 1 The subject real estate was titled in Mr. Ramunno and Kathleen Renee Ramunno s ( Mrs. Ramunno ) names. 2 The mortgage at issue lists Mr. Ramunno as the Mortgagee on the first page but makes no reference to Mrs. Ramunno. 3 At closing, Mrs. Ramunno executed the mortgage and her 1 See Exhibit A to Plaintiff s Letter Memorandum (Trans. ID. 37064608). Mr. and Mrs. Ramunno will collectively be referred to as Defendants. Mr. and Mrs. Ramunno are husband and wife. 3 Id. 2 signature was included in the acknowledgment with the word seal written next to her signature. 4 2. Mr. Ramunno has since defaulted and owes Wachovia the principal amount with interest from July 1, 2009 and reasonable counsel fees, late charges and costs. 5 3. On March 17, 2011, Wachovia filed a Motion for Default Judgment seeking an order of Default Judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Ramunno. 6 4. Defendants argue that because Mrs. Ramunno is not named as a borrower on the face of the mortgage, there is no basis to grant judgment against her. 7 Further, Defendants argue that Mrs. Ramunno did not sign the mortgage under seal, 8 and thus, only the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to foreclose on the property. 9 5. Wachovia argues that Mrs. Ramunno s signature clearly indicated her intent to be a party to the mortgage. Further, Wachovia argues that the word seal next to her signature validly created a mortgage under seal. 6. 25 Del. C. § 2101 (a) provides a template for valid Delaware mortgages. However, 25 Del. C. § 2101(c) states, [n]othing herein contained shall invalidate a mortgage not made in the above form . . .. The sine qua non of a mortgage is not the form of the document but the intention of the parties to secure a debt with a pledge of real 4 Id.; (A notary acknowledgment attached to the mortgage states that Leo John Ramunno and Kathleen Renee Ramunno are parties to the mortgage). 5 See Complaint ¶ 2 (Trans. ID. 29489045) (Mr. Ramunno does not contest that he is in default of the mortgage). 6 See Motion for Default Judgment (Trans. ID. 36533355). 7 See Defendants Letter Memorandum (Trans. ID. 37064608). 8 Apparently, Defendants argue that because an embossed paper wafer was not affixed to the document, the mortgage is not under seal. 9 Id. 2 property. 10 By signing the last page of the mortgage next to the word seal, Mrs. Ramunno manifested an intent to pledge her interest in the real estate. 7. It is well settled law that the printed word seal next to an individual s name is all that is required to create a sealed instrument, 11 and thus, the mortgage at issue in this case was created under seal. Consequently Default Judgment shall be entered against the Defendants for the amounts set forth below. Principal Amount Due $577,748.33 Interest from July 1, 2009 to April 6, 2011 at $92.99 per diem $59,355.92 TOTAL PRINCIPAL & INTEREST DUE $637,104.25 Escrow Advances $9,232.69 Accumulated Late Charges $2,669.89 Foreclosure costs $370.50 TOTAL DEBT DUE $649,377.33 IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________ Jan R. Jurden, Judge 10 11 Handler Const., Inc. v. CoreStates Bank, N.A., 633 A.2d 356, 363 (Del. 1993). Whittington v. Dragon Group, L.L.C., 991 A.2d 1, 14 (2009). 3
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.
