IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHARLES PICKENS,

Defendant Be1oW,
Appel1ant,

No. 387, 2015

v. Court Below: Superior Court

of the State of Delaware,
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., successor
by merger to CITH~`INANCIAL
MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.,

C.A. No. N13L-02-021

P1aintiff Below,
Appellee.

OOOOO'JOO'JOO'>CO'JOO'JC¢OOCO'JOO'>¢O'>QO¢OO'>OOG

Submitted: February 5 , 2015
Decided: Apri14, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and VALIHURA, Justic_es.
0 R D E R

This 4“‘ day of April 2016, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and
the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

(l) The appellant, Charles Pickens, filed this appeal from an order of the
Superior Court granting summary judgment to the appel1ee, CitiMortgage, Inc.,
successor by merger to CitiFinancia1 Mortgage Company, Inc. ("CitiMortgage").
We fmd no merit to Pickens’ appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s
judgment.

(2) On April 13, 2005, Yvette Pickens, Pickens’ then-Wife, executed a

promissory note ("Note") for a $184,500 loan from Wilmington Fin`ance, a division

of AIG Federal Savings Banl<. Yvette Pickens also signed a Prepayment Rider and
Allonge to the Note. Pickens’ signature did not appear on any of these documents.
(3) The Note was secured by a mortgage dated April l3, 2005
("Mortgage") on real property owned by Pickens and Yvette Pickens ("the
Property"). Both Pickens and Yvette Pickens signed the Mortgage. The Mortgage
provided that if payments were not made on the Note, the lender could, after thirty

1

days notice, accelerate the sum secured by the Mortgage. The lender could also

foreclose upon the Property for collection of the amount owed under the Note, along
with the costs of suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees, sums expended for the payment of
property taxes and insurance, and any other charges expended for preservation of
the Property.z By assignment dated September 30, 2005, the Mortgage was assigned
to CitiMortgage’s predecessor.

(4) No payments have been made on the Note since March 20ll. In
February 20l3, CitiMortgage filed a scz`re facias sur mortgage complaint against
Pickens and Yvette Pickens. Yvette Pickens did not respond to the complaint.
Pickens initially filed a motion to dismiss, which he withdrew, and then filed an

answer and counterclaims. The Superior Court granted CitiMortgage’s motion to

dismiss the counterclaims on November 14, 2013. Picl<ens then filed another motion
to dismiss, which the Superior Court denied on December l9, 2013.

(5) On January 30, 2015, CitiMortgage filed a motion for summary
judgment. The Superior Court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment
on March 12, 2015. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Superior Court gave
Picl<ens another sixty days to find replacement financing The Superior Court also
directed CitiMortgage to file a certification that Pickens was not an obligor on the
Note. CitiMortgage filed the certification on March 27, 2015.

(6) The Superior Court held another hearing on July 9, 2015. Picl<ens had
not obtained replacement financing The Superior Court concluded that Pickens had
presented no valid defense to the foreclosure action and granted CitiMortgage’s
motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.

(7) We review the Superior Court's grant or denial of a motion for summary

judgment de n0v0.3

On a motion for summary judgment, the movant must
demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law." "When the evidence shows no genuine

issues of material fact in dispute, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to

demonstrate that there are genuine issues of material fact that must be resolved at
trial."5

(8) On appeal, Picl<ens asserts a number of confusing and conclusory
claims that may be summarized as follows: (i) the Mortgage was not in default
because payment was never a problem for him; (ii) his signature was on the Note;
(iii) CitiMortgage ignored the Superior Court’s orders to settle this matter; (iv) the
Mortgage was the result of predatory lending practices; (v) title fraud; and (vi)
violation of various federal statutes, including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act and Fair Housing Act, as well as other criminal and fraudulent conduct by
CitiMortgage and its counsel.6

(9) Defenses in a foreclosure action are limited to payment, satisfaction,
absence of a seal, or a plea in avoidance of the deed.7 Although Pickens claims that
payment was never a problem for him, it is undisputed that no payments have been
made on the Note since March 201 l. In the event of non-payment of the Note, the

Mortgage provides that CitiMortgage may foreclose on the Property.

5 Grabowski v. Mangler, 938 A.2d 637, 641 (Del. 2007).

6 These claims include allegations that CitiMortgage’s counsel hacked into Pickens’ computer
after the summary judgment motion was granted. These claims were not before the Superior Court
in the first instance and carmot be considered by the Court for the first time on appeal. Supr. Ct.
R. 8; Delaware Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphz`ly, 703 A.2d l202, 1206 (Del. l997).

7 Brooks v. BAC Home Loans Serv., LP, 2012 WL 3637238, at *l (Del. Aug. 23, 2012) (citing
Gordy v. Preform Building Components, Inc., 310 A.2d 893, 895 (Del. Super. Ct. l973)).

4

(10) As to Picl<ens’ contentions regarding the signatures on the Note, only
his ex-wife is listed as a signatory and only his ex-wife’s signature appears on the
Note. To the extent some of Picl<ens’ claims of predatory lending practices, title
fraud, statutory violations, and criminal and fraudulent conduct by CitiMortgage and
its counsel relate to the Mortgage, none of those conclusory and unsubstantiated
allegations created a genuine issue of material fact precluding the entry of summary
judgment. Pickens’ remaining claims do not constitute a defense to a foreclosure
action.g

(1 l) In addition, as to Pickens’ claim that CitiMortgage refused to settle with
him as advised by the Superior Court, the record reflects that the Superior Court
directed CitiMortgage to investigate whether Pickens was eligible for loan
modification and to provide Pickens with certain information that he would need to
obtain replacement fmancing. CitiMortgage complied with the Superior Court’s
directives. CitiMortgage was not required to comply with Pickens’ demand for a
mortgage substantially less than the amount due under the Note. Having carefully
reviewed the parties’ positions on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court did

not err in granting CitiMortgage’s motion for summary judgment.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRl\/[ED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice

