Opinion
No. 232, 2001
Submitted: August 30, 2001
Decided: October 1, 2001
Court BelowCSuperior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 01T-02-081
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished opinion is below.
DEAN C. BLACK, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. CITY OF WILMINGTON, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 232, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: August 30, 2001 Decided: October 1, 2001
Before WALSH, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices
Myron T. Steele, Justice:
ORDER
This 1st day of October 2001, upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
On August 20, 2001, the appellant filed a document entitled "Motion to Dismiss," which requests the Court to strike the appellee's answering brief. The Court has considered the appellant's motion and finds no basis to strike the answering brief. Accordingly, the appellant's motion is denied.
(1) The appellant, Dean C. Black, filed this appeal from a decision of the Superior Court, dated May 6, 2001, which denied Black's motion for relief from judgment. Upon careful consideration of the parties' respective positions, the Court finds no merit to this appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Superior Court.
(2) The record reflects that, on February 16, 2001, the City of Wilmington filed a Writ of Monition in the Superior Court to collect back taxes and water and sewer charges assessed against the property situated at 1000 West 9th Street. Eventually, the Prothonotary issued a Writ of Venditioni Exponas that directed the sheriff to sell the property.
(3) On April 30, 2001, Black filed a motion for relief from judgment contending that he had not received proper notice of the City's writ. Black contended that the only notice he received came from his daughter on April 26, 2001 regarding the impending Sheriff's sale of the property scheduled for May 8, 2001. Black further contended that the City's meter readings on the property could not have been true readings. Black appears to have asserted that he read the meter at the property in 1995 and 1996, before his incarceration in 1997, and the readings provided by the City were 200% higher than Black's own meter readings for that time period.
Notwithstanding Black's assertion, the exhibit attached to Black's motion reflected, in fact, that true readings of the meter had been taken.
(4) Black's motion for relief from judgment was an apparent attempt to stop the impending Sheriff's sale. His motion, however, did not dispute that money was due and owing on the property. To the extent that Black now contends on appeal that he did not owe the amounts set forth in the City's writ, this assertion was never presented to the Superior Court and cannot be considered by this Court for the first time on appeal.
Supr.Ct.R. 8.
(5) Moreover, we find no abuse in the Superior Court's denial of Black's motion for relief from judgment on the ground of improper notice.
Battaglia v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Del. Supr., 379 A.2d 1132, 1135 (1977).
With respect to the writ of monition, the record reflects that the writ was properly posted as required by law. As for the Sheriff's sale, the due process requirements with respect to a Sheriff's sale are set forth in Superior Court Civil Rule 69(g). The record reflects that the City complied with the requirements of Rule 69(g), including the notice requirements. Indeed, Black's motion, which was filed before the Sheriff's sale, reflects that Black received notice of the scheduled sale date. Furthermore, Black did not move to set aside the sale, as he should have done.
Wilm.C. § 4-181.
Haskins v. Motivational Ctr., Del. Super., 605 A.2d 15 (1992).
Deibler v. Atlantic Properties Group, Inc., Del.Supr., 652 A.2d 553, 556 (1995).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.