Opinion
C. A. N23C-02-243 DJB
11-03-2023
TRUIST BANK, formally known as Branch Banking and Trust Company, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH B. ELAD, Defendant.
Counsel via File & Serve Express Joseph E. Elad (via United States Postal Service)
Submitted: October 30, 2023
Counsel via File & Serve Express Joseph E. Elad (via United States Postal Service)
ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT'S WRIT OF HABEAUS CORPUS
Danielle J. Brennan, Judge
This 3rd day of November, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant's "Writ of Habeas Corpus", it appears to the Court that:
Truist Bank v. Elad, C.A. N23C-02-243 DJB, D.I. 30.
1. On September 8, 2021, this Court entered judgment against Defendant Joseph B. Elad ("Defendant") in a related foreclosure action. Defendant moved to stay and vacate that judgment in on numerous occasions without success. On March 8, 2022, the property in question was purchased at Sheriff Sale by Plaintiff.
N17L-06-100 EMD-D.I. 50, 53, 82.
N17L-06-100 EMD-D.I. 53, 57, 59, 64, 73-74.
N17L-06-100 EMD-D.I. 80.
2. After the conclusion of the Foreclosure Action, Defendant continued to occupy the Property, prompting Plaintiff to file the instant Ejectment Action on February 28, 2023.
D.I. 1.
3. Pending litigation of the ejectment action, Defendant filed the instant Writ of Habeas Corpus.
4. Defendant's Petition cites to numerous decisional case law, as well as many federal statutes in support of his filing. In his filing, he asserts a claim for relief as well as a jury trial demand. At no point in this filing does Defendant reference that he is either held in custody or otherwise has standing to entitle himself to relief under such a Writ.
5. A Writ of Habeas Corpus provides limited relief and is available as "an opportunity for one illegally confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court ordering the commitment."
Hall v Carr, 692 A.2d 888. 891 (Del. 1997).
6. Defendant is neither incarcerated or confined, therefore, he lacks standing for such a petition. Further, this matter is an ejectment action, and this Writ is nonresponsive to the matter before the Court.
7. As a result, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
IT SO ORDERED.