Shaw v. Bank of America, N.A.

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of Corrine Shaw’s motion for relief from a mortgage-foreclosure judgment under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b). The Court held that Shaw’s arguments concerning Bank of America’s standing and the bankruptcy discharge of the debt had already been rejected and could not be used to substitute for a timely appeal.

Holdings

1. A party may not use a Rule 60(b) motion to relitigate claims previously decided in an unappealed order or as a substitute for a timely appeal from that order.
2. Shaw was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) because she failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct, voidness, satisfaction, release, discharge, reversal or vacation of a prior judgment, or another equitable reason justifying relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Shaw could use a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) as a substitute for a timely appeal from the prior foreclosure judgment.
2. Whether Shaw demonstrated a Rule 60(b) ground warranting relief from the Superior Court's foreclosure judgment.

Disposition

affirmed