Citadel Federal Credit Union v. Williams

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CITADEL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No.: N24C-08-080 FWW
)
RAEKWON J. WILLIAMS, )
)
Defendant. )

Submitted: March 7, 2025
Decided: March 11, 2025

Upon Plaintiff Citadel Federal Credit Union’s Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment
GRANTED.

ORDER

Garvan F. McDaniel, Esquire, HOGAN McDANIEL, 1311 Delaware Avenue,
Wilmington, DE, Attorney for Plaintiff Citadel Federal Credit Union.

Raekwon J. Williams, 1 Amstel Drive, Apt 10, New Castle, DE 19720, Defendant,
pro se.

WHARTON, J.
This 11th day of March 2025, upon consideration of Plaintiff Citadel Federal

Credit Union’s (“Citadel”) Motion for Summary Judgment,1 its Amended Motion

for Summary Judgment (“Amended Motion”), 2 the Response of Defendant

Raekwon J. Williams (“Williams”), Citadel’s Reply, 3 and the record in this case, it

appears to the Court that:

1. Citadel brings this action pursuant to an installment sales contract for

the purchase of a 2018 Chrysler 300 alleging that Williams failed to pay the monthly

installments due under the contract.4 The Complaint notifies Williams that the

allegations in it are to be answered by affidavit pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 3901.5

2. Williams answered, although not by affidavit. 6 He admits the existence

of the installment sales contract but explains that he stopped making payments

because the vehicle was totaled in an accident.7 He denies being in default because

he “paid for gap insurance through Citadel and the insurance that totaled out the

vehicle (USAA) and gap insurance handled the amount owed.” 8 He attaches as

1
Pl. Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 5.
2
Pl.’s Amend. Mot. Summ. J., D.I. 12.
3
Pl.’s Reply, D.I. 9.
4
Compl., D.I. 1.
5
Id.
6
Ans. D.I. 4.
7
Id. at ⁋ 5.
8
Id. at ⁋ 6.

2
Exhibit “C” a document from Safe-Guard Products International LLC purporting to

represent the gap insurance.9 Unfortunately, the document is of little value as it

requires logging on to a claim dashboard to view it contents. 10

3. Citadel first moved for summary judgment on October 22, 2024.11 It

asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment for two reasons. First, because

Williams failed to file an affidavit of defense as required by 10 Del. C. § 3901, and

second, because he fails to cite any defenses to the allegations in the Complaint.

Williams response essentially was a request for understanding because he is

representing himself.

4. Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 3901(a), certain types of civil actions, such as

this one, allow a plaintiff to require a defendant to answer the allegations of the

complaint by an affidavit “setting forth the specific nature and character of any

defense and the factual basis therefore.” Under § 3901(d), the Court, in its

discretion, may enter a default judgment for failure of a defendant to answer by

affidavit. Further, § 3901(i) permits the Court, in its discretion to “extend the time

9
Id. at Ex. C.
10
Id.
11
Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 5.

3
in which the defendant …has to answer or otherwise do anything authorized by its

rules of Civil Procedure.”

5. In his Answer, Williams asserts that nothing is due to Citadel because

gap insurance he obtained through Citadel and his other insurer on the totaled vehicle

“handled the amount owed.” Unfortunately Exhibit “C” attached to his Answer,

which apparently purports to be proof of the gap insurance is simply a “Claim

Dashboard.” No documents are uploaded to it.

6. Because Williams was a pro se litigant who asserted in his Answer what

would be a valid defense on the merits, the Court temporarily determined not to grant

Citadel’s motion. 12 Instead, it entered a Preliminary Order on December 13, 2014

allowing Williams 20 days to submit an affidavit of defense in compliance with 10

Del. C. § 3901, including documents showing any amounts Williams claims Citadel

was paid under the terms of the installment sales contract and/or under any insurance

policies.13

7. Williams failed to file an affidavit. As a result, Citadel submitted this

Amended Motion on January 28, 2025.14 The Court directed Williams to respond

12
D.I. 10.
13
Id.
14
Pl.’s Amend. Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 12.
4
by February 21, 2025.15 Williams did not respond, and, on March 7th, Citadel wrote

the Court asking it to grant its Amended Motion as unopposed.

8. Because Williams has failed to respond to the Court’s Order of December

13, 2024 or to its Order directing him to respond to Citadel’s Amended Motion, the

Court determines that the Amended Motion is unopposed.

THEREFORE, Citadel Federal Credit Union’s Amended Motion for

Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton
Ferris W. Wharton, J.

15
D.I. 13.

5