Opinion
C.A. No. 01L-06-083-FSS
Bench Trial Held: January 6, 2003 Submitted: March 25, 2003
Decided: June 27, 2003
John J. Thompson, Esquire Levine Thompson, Wilmington.
Leo J. Ramunno, Esquire, Wilmington.
Dear Counsel:
This case went to a bench trial during the week of January 6, 2003. Due to the unusual nature of the facts and the claims, briefly discussed below, the court called for post-trial briefing. The parties filed a stipulated brief schedule calling for Defendant's opening brief on February 7, 2003. Plaintiff's answering brief was due on February 21, 2003. Defendants filed their brief on February 10, 2003. When the court did not receive Plaintiff's answering brief, on March 25, 2003 the court issued a letter/order deeming Plaintiff "as having waived its answering brief."
This case involves mortgage foreclosures. The facts are complicated and unusual because the paperwork is a mess. The signatures on the mortgages and notes are not parallel and Defendants admit to signing some documents, while denying signing others. The trial mostly was an attempt to determine who signed what and when. The parties relied on direct and circumstantial evidence. It seems clear that Citifinancial made loans in the amounts it claims. But the conflicting paperwork makes it difficult to determine who borrowed what and when. It is even more difficult to determine the extent of Citifinancial's status as a secured creditor.
The court now considers Plaintiff's failure to file its post-trial brief as tacit recognition that its claim to secure creditor status is untenable. In any event, without Plaintiff's help, the court is unable and unwilling to sort out the complicated record and address Defendants' arguments. Plaintiff may have unsecured claims against Defendants. Again, it appears that loans were made and not repaid. But Plaintiff, in effect, has abandoned foreclosure as a remedy.
For the foregoing reasons, judgment is entered for Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.