COURT OF COMN|ON PL.EAS
FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KENT COUNTY COURTHOUSE
38 THE GREEN
DOVER, DELAWARE 19901
PHONE: (302) 735-3910

CHARLES W. WELCH, ||I

JUDGE
June IO, 2014

I\/Ir. Spencer E. Dunldey John C. Andrade, Esq.

Ms. Denisc M. Ashton-Dunl<ley Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze

PO Box 222 116 West Water Street

Odessa, DE 19730 PO Box 598

Prc) Se Defendants-Below/Appellants Attorney for Plaintiff Below/Appellee

RE: Dunkley, et al. v. Villas of West Shore Maint. Corp.
C.A. No.: CPU5-l0-002344

Motion to Stay Execution

Dear Mr. Dunkley, Ms. Dunkley and Mr. Andrade:

The Court is in receipt of the Motion to Stay Execution submitted by the
Appellants/Defendants~Below, Spencer E. Dunkley and Denise M. Ashton- Dunkley
("defendants"). The defendants request the Court to stay execution of the levy on their vehicles
’oy the Appellee/Plaintiff-Below, Villas of West Shore Maintenance Coq)oration ("plaintift"), on
grounds of undue hardship. The defendants argue that they have complied with the judgment
thus far, making monthly payments of an average cf $30 to the plaintiff The defendants further
contend that the judgment amount levied on their vehicles is inaccurate and that the plaintiff has
been unwilling to negotiate in its interactions with thern. After carefully reviewing the motion,
the Court must deny the defendants’ request to stay execution

Pursuant to title 10, section 5072 of the Delaware Code, “[a]n execution may be issued

upon a judgment in a civil action at any time within 5 years from the time when such judgment

June 10,2014

Page 2

was entered or rendered . . . ." DEL. CODE ANN. tit. l(), § 5072(a). in this case, the Court entered
judgment against the defendants on November 23, 2011 in the amount of $280.97, plus pre and
post judgment interest from July 3l, 20l0, at the rate of 18% per annum, and court costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees. On January 10, 20l2, the Court awarded the plaintiff reasonable
attorneys fees in the amount of $3,265. On May 6, 2014, the plaintiff sought to execute the
judgment. 'I`herefore, the Court finds that the plaintiff was well within the 5 year statutory
deadline set forth in §5072(21).

The Court has reviewed the Ievy and the monthly installment receipts submitted by the
defendants with their motion and concludes that the amount of the levy executed on by the
plaintiff was accurate The levy set forth an accounting of the defendants’ debt. In their motion,
the defendants mistakenly assert that the levy was issued on the full amount of the judgment,
$3,265, without taking into account installment payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff
I~Iowever, review of the levy shows that the plaintiff deducted $585 for payments submitted by
the defendants from the total amount of the judginent. In addition to this deduction, $220.50 was
added to the levy pursuant to the costs of execution. 'l`herefore, the Court finds that the amount
of the levy executed by the plaintiff was accurate

Finally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff has been uncooperative in negotiating with
them regarding payments on the judgment To the contrary, the Court concludes that the
plaintiff has been more than cooperative with the defendants Attached with the defendants’
motion was a letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendants on December 19, 2013. The letter
stated that the plaintiff would refrain from seeking execution of the judgment until January 25,

2014, in order to give the defendants time to satisfy the judgment The Court notes that the

.lune IO, 2014

Page 3

plaintiff gave the defendants until l\/lay 6, 2014, over two years after judgment was entered, to
satisfy the judgment before seeking execution

The Court recognizes that the defendants are facing financial difficulties However, the

fact remains that the plaintiff holds a legally valid judgment against the defendants and is entitled
to payment The Court finds that there is no legal basis in this action to stay execution of the
levy based on the assertions alleged by the defendants. 'I`herefore, the defendants’ motion to stay

execution of the levy is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORI)ERED.

 titan

Charles W. Welch, III

CWW: mek

