Opinion
C.A. No.: U506-11-0034
12-20-2013
RE: Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC v. Octavia Dolison Patten
Octavia Dolison Patten
100 Haman Dr., Apt. 203
Dover, DE 19904 Seth Yeager, Esq.
Lyons, Doughty, and Velduis, P.A.
15 Ashley Place, Suite 2B
Wilmington, DE 19804 Dear Ms. Patten and Mr. Yeager,
As you are aware, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Vacate Default Judgment filed by the defendant, Octavia Dolison Patten, on December 6, 2013. After careful consideration of the arguments for the motion, the Court denies the defendant's Motion to Vacate Default Judgment.
The plaintiff, Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, commenced this civil debt action on November 1, 2006, when the plaintiff filed a Complaint with this Court. An Affidavit of Process was filed with the Court stating that the defendant was personally served with the Complaint on November 12, 2006. The Court entered default judgment against the defendant on December 13, 2006, when she failed to answer the plaintiff's Complaint within 20 days of being served, pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 12(a). On February 4, 2008, the Court sent notice to both parties of the hearing on the plaintiff's Motion for Change of Name. The defendant did not appear at the hearing. At the plaintiff's request, the Court issued a wage attachment for the defendant on October 23, 2013.
The name of the plaintiff in the Complaint was Colonial Credit Corporation, assignee of Metris Bank. On February 27, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiff's Motion for Change of Name to Palisades Acquisition XCI, LLC. --------
On October 25, 2013, the defendant filed her Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. The defendant contends that she was never served with a copy of the Complaint and that she does not match the description in the Affidavit of Process.
The plaintiff opposes the Motion to Vacate Default Judgment on the grounds that the defendant failed to establish excusable neglect. The plaintiff contends that the defendant offers no explanation to support her argument that she never received the Complaint. The plaintiff further contends that the defendant has failed to set forth a meritorious defense to the action that would allow a different outcome to the litigation if heard on the merits.
The Court may relieve a party from judgment upon finding:
(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.CT. COM. P. CIV. R. 60 (b). "Delaware courts look favorably on motions to vacate default judgments 'because they promote Delaware's strong judicial policy of deciding cases on the merits.' Accordingly, Rule 60 (b) should be construed liberally to give effect to that underlying policy." Emory Hill & Co. v. Mrfruz LLC, 2013 WL 5347519, at *4 (Del. Super. Sept. 24, 2013) (citation omitted). "Although Rule 60(b) does not provide a specific time limit within which a party must request relief from judgment, the law requires a party seeking to reopen a judgment to act without unreasonable delay." McElroy v. Multi-Residential-M, LLC, 2013 WL 1228030, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 18, 2013).
In the present case, the defendant argues that the judgment is void because she was never served with the Complaint. However, the only proffer made by the defendant in support of her claim is that she does not match the description in the Affidavit of Process. Upon speaking with the defendant at the hearing on this motion, the Court deems the description in the Affidavit of Process as an accurate estimate of the defendant's age, height, and weight. Additionally, the defendant admits to residing at the address listed in the Affidavit of Process on the date process was allegedly completed. Most importantly, the defendant was sent a notice on February 4, 2008, from the Court itself to the same address in the Affidavit of Process regarding a hearing in this case. The defendant claims she also never received this notice. The Court finds this line of events all too coincidental.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that the defendant was served with a copy of the Complaint in this case. Additionally, the defendant was provided knowledge of her involvement in this litigation in 2008 from the notice sent to the defendant by the Court and she did nothing to defend herself. Therefore, default judgment against the defendant is affirmed and the defendant's Motion to Vacate Default Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/
Charles W. Welch, III CWW: mek