Jones v. U.S. Bank National Association

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 82, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOCELYN JONES, § § No. 82, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. K24M-01-008 U.S. BANK NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: December 27, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it

appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Jocelyn Jones, appeals the Superior Court’s February 16,

2024 order denying her “motion for emergency writ of petition.” We find no merit

to Jones’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

(2) On June 13, 2023, U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title

Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust (“U.S. Bank”) obtained default judgments

against Dwayne Eugene Jones Jr.1 and Jocelyn Beth Jones (“Jones”), Personal

1 Dwayne Jones is not a party to this appeal. Representatives and Heirs to the Estate of Sarah Elizabeth Jones, in a mortgage

foreclosure action involving property located at 1290 West State College Road,

Dover, Delaware 19904 and 1320 West State College Road, Dover, Delaware 19904

(“the Property”). U.S. Bank bought the Property at a sheriff’s sale held on October

5, 2023. The sale was confirmed without objection under Superior Court Civil Rule

69(d) on November 24, 2023. U.S. Bank sent a notice to vacate to Jones by first-

class and certified mail on December 20, 2023.

(3) On January 5, 2024, U.S. Bank filed a petition for a writ of possession.

The Superior Court issued a notice to Jones to show cause why the writ should not

be granted and scheduled a hearing for 11:00 a.m. on February 2, 2025. On January

29, 2025, Jones moved to stay the proceedings. Jones failed to appear at the February

2 hearing, and the Superior Court granted the writ of possession. Jones then filed a

“motion for emergency writ of petition,” asserting, among other things, that she

needed more time to obtain an attorney, the writ of possession was unlawful, she had

been denied due process, and her civil rights had been violated. Because the Superior

Court determined that Jones may have been confused about the effect her filing a

motion to stay had on her obligation to appear at the February 2 hearing to contest

the issuance of a writ of possession, the Superior Court held a hearing Jones’s motion

for emergency writ of petition on February 16, 2025. Finding that Jones’s claimed

2 need for an extension to secure legal counsel would be futile even if granted, the

Superior Court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

(4) On appeal, Jones argues that the Superior Court erred by granting the

writ of possession to U.S. Bank because the foreclosure proceedings were

“permeated with deceptive practices and fraud” and that the Superior Court abused

its discretion when it denied her motion to stay the proceedings. Jones’s claims are

unavailing.

(5) First, Jones waived her arguments regarding errors that occurred in the

underlying foreclosure action when she failed to object to the sheriff’s sale, and we

cannot consider them in this appeal from the Superior Court’s order granting U.S.

Bank’s petition for a writ of possession.2 Second, the Superior Court did not abuse

its discretion when it denied Jones’s motion for a stay or continuance. Jones claims

that she was denied the ability to participate meaningfully in the proceedings, but

the record reflects that she received actual notice of both the underlying foreclosure

proceedings (as evidenced by her participation in mediation as well as her

acknowledgment that she had been seeking the assistance of legal counsel for “a few

years now”3) and the writ-of-possession proceedings (as evidenced by her filing of

a motion to stay the proceedings).

2 Banning v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 2023 WL 4144900, at *1 (Del. June 22, 2023). 3 App. to Answering Br. at B0106. 3 (6) The Court has reviewed the record carefully. There is no evidence that

the proper procedures for the issuance of the writ of possession were not followed

here.4 Nor is there any evidence of legal error or abuse of discretion on the part of

the Superior Court either in denying a stay or in issuing the writ of possession. We

therefore affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

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

Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

4 See 10 Del. C. § 5012. 4