Denilia Francis v. Ocwen Financial Services, Inc., et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Leonard L. Williams Justice Center 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400 Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3734 TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY-REEVES VICE CHANCELLOR October 19, 2016 Denilia Francis 9 Guenever Drive New Castle, DE 19720 RE: Ocwen Financial Services, Inc. 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Denilia Francis v. Ocwen Financial Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 12661-VCMR Dear Litigants: On August 9, 2016, the Register in Chancery received Plaintiff’s petition (the “Petition”) for a temporary restraining order and injunction against Ocwen Financial Services (“Ocwen”), which sought to prohibit Ocwen from foreclosing upon Plaintiff’s property at 9 Guenever Drive, New Castle, Delaware, 19720. On August 15, 2016, Master Zurn issued a Letter Decision and Order, which granted the application for in forma pauperis, but dismissed the Petition as legally frivolous. Neither party took exception to the Letter Decision and Order within eleven days of the date of the report, as required under Court of Chancery Rule 144. On September 9, 2016, the Letter Decision and Order was approved and adopted on by Chancellor Bouchard. Francis v. Ocwen C.A. No. 12661-VCMR October 19, 2016 Page 2 of 3 On September 13, 2016, the Register in Chancery received a letter from Plaintiff to Master Zurn. Plaintiff stated that she did not understand Master Zurn’s ruling, asked thirteen questions,1 requested that Master Zurn “reconsider [her] position,” stated “[t]he FDCPA has rules concerning debt collectors and creditors. Ocwen is a debt collector acting outside of their capacity.[sic] (legally) by law,” and pointed Master Zurn to “Exhibit A,” which is a June 15, 2016 letter from Ocwen to Plaintiff. The purpose of Plaintiff’s September 13, 2016 letter is unclear. To the extent that it purports to take exceptions to Master Zurn’s Letter Decision and Order, I note that it is untimely under Rule 144. Regardless, a hearing is unnecessary. I have conducted a de novo review of the rulings in the Letter Decision and Order. See DiGiacobbe v. Sestak, 743 A.2d 180, 184 (Del. 1999). I 1 The September 13, 2016 asks the following questions. 1) “What is frivolous?” 2) “Are you complicit to the greed, corruption and fraud of so called debt collectors?” 3) “How can you provide proof that Ocwen Financial has received hardship?” 4) “Is not being threatened to be evicted not irreparable harm?” 5) “What is equity? Any must be shown by whom?” 6) “Is being served by Sherriff not a pending of a thing or type of action?” 7) “Is asserting my rights and staying in honor not good faith?” 8) “Are you perpetuating fraud that has plagued this society for centuries to continue?” 9) “Can you explain rule 144? I am not a legalese expert.” 10) “Are you not to exercise ordinary care?” 11) “Can a debt collector collect on a debt that was discharged in Bankruptcy?” 12) “How can a debt collector have a lien on property?” 13) “What and how can a debt collector claim rights which were never theirs?” Francis v. Ocwen C.A. No. 12661-VCMR October 19, 2016 Page 3 of 3 agree with the analysis conducted in the Letter Decision and Order and adopt it as a decision of this court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Sincerely, /s/ Tamika Montgomery-Reeves Vice Chancellor TMR/jp
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
