BVFL I FI LLC v. Office Partners XIII Iron Hill LLC

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BVFL I FI LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No.: N24L-04-016 FWW
)
OFFICE PARTNERS XIII IRON )
HILL LLC and NAVIENT )
SOLUTIONS, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )

Submitted: November 13, 2024
Decided: January 31, 2025

Upon Plaintiff BVFL I FI LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

ORDER

Christina B. Vavala, Esquire, Katherine Devanney, Esquire, POLSINELLI PC, 222
Delaware Ave., Suite 1101, Wilmington, DE 19801; Bradley R. Gardner, Esquire
(pro hac vice), Abigail E. Williams, Esquire (pro hac vice), POLSINELLI PC, 900
W. 48th Place, Suite 900, Kansas City, MO 64112; Deionna E. Ferguson, Esquire
(pro hac vice), POLSINELLI PC, 7676 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800, St. Louis, MO
63105; Attorneys for Plaintiff BVFL I FI LLC.

Evan Rassman, Esquire, COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN,
PC, 500 Delaware Ave., Suite 730, Wilmington, DE 19801; Jonathan A. Cass,
Esquire (pro hac vice), COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN,
PC, 1600 Market St., 32nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103; Attorneys for Defendant
Office Partners XIII Iron Hill LLC.
R. Karl Hill, Esquire, James S. Green, Jr., Esquire, SEITZ, VAN OGTROP &
GREEN, P.A., 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1500, Wilmington, DE 19801; Attorneys
for Navient Solutions, LLC.

WHARTON, J.

2
This 31st day of January, 2025, upon consideration of Plaintiff BVFL I FI

LLC’s (“Lender”) Motion for Summary Judgment, 1 Defendant Navient Solutions

LLC’s (“Navient”) Response, 2 Defendant Office Partners XIII Iron Hill LLC’s

(“Borrower”) Response, 3 Lender’s Reply to Navient, 4 Lender’s Reply to Borrower,5

oral argument, and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

1. On October 17, 2017, Borrower entered into a commercial real estate

mortgage loan with Lender (original and as modified, “Loan”) pursuant to the terms

and conditions of the Loan Agreement.6 The Loan is evidenced by the Promissory

Note (original and as modified, “Note”), which was first modified by Allonge #1 to

Promissory Note, and then by the Amended, Restated and Consolidated Promissory

Note.7

2. The Loan is secured by the Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents,

Security Agreement, and Fixture Filing (“Mortgage”). 8 Pursuant to the terms of the

Mortgage, Borrower granted Lender a first-priority lien and security interest in real

property located at 700, 750, 800 & 1000 Prides Crossing, Newark, Delaware,

1
Lender’s Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 21.
2
Navient’s Resp., D.I. 25.
3
Borrower’s Resp., D.I. 27.
4
Lender’s Reply to Navient, D.I. 28
5
Lender’s Reply to Borrower, D.I. 28.
6
Lender’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 1-2, D.I. 21.
7
Id. at 2.
8
Id.
3
together with all improvements and other personal property used at, or in connection

with, that real property (“Property”).9

3. As additional security for the amounts due and owing under the Note,

Borrower executed an Assignment of Leases and Rents (“ALR”). 10 Also, in

connection with Borrower’s execution of the Note, Christopher Buccini, Robert

Buccini, and David Pollin executed a Guaranty of Recourse Obligations (“GRO”).11

The Loan Agreement, Note, Mortgage, ALR, and GRO are collectively referred to

herein as the “Loan Documents.”

4. Lender moves for summary judgment. 12 Both Navient and Borrower

responded in opposition.13 Lender replied separately to each defendant.14 The Court

held oral argument on November 13, 2024.

5. In moving for summary judgment, Lender contends that Borrower

breached the Note and other Loan Documents by: (i) incurring unpermitted

indebtedness without Lender’s prior written consent; (ii) permitting a lien to exist on

the Property without Lender’s prior written consent; (iii) failing to pay the

9
Id. at 2-3.
10
Id. at 3.
11
Id.
12
Lender’s Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 21.
13
Navient’s Resp., D.I. 25; Borrower’s Resp., D.I. 27.
14
Lender’s Reply to Navient, D.I. 28; Lender’s Reply to Borrower, D.I. 28.
4
accelerated indebtedness due and owing under the Note, as and when required; and

(iv) failing to pay the entire balance due and owing under the Note. 15

6. In its Opening Brief, Lender points out the specific amounts allegedly

due and owing under the Loan Documents (“Indebtedness”),16 but does so without

much information as to the calculation of these amounts.17 Lender claims it has

established its right to summary judgment because: (i) Borrower is in default under

the Mortgage and other Loan Documents; (ii) at least $21,980,037.74 is currently

due to Lender from Borrower under the terms of the Loan Documents; and (iii) the

Loan Documents and Delaware law entitle Lender to foreclose and otherwise

exercise its rights and remedies. 18

7. Additionally, Lender preemptively addresses Borrower’s and Navient’s

affirmative defenses, arguing they contain speculative, unsupported, and

unexplained allegations that cannot prevent entry of summary judgment. 19 As to

Borrower’s five affirmative defenses, Lender argues that they all fail. 20 Lender

contends that Borrower’s defense of failure to state a claim for relief fails because

15
Lender’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 1, D.I. 21.
16
Id. at 6-7.
17
The Affidavit of Steve Cho in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (“Cho Affidavit”) was submitted with the Opening Brief. Paragraph 21
of the Cho Affidavit also points out the same Indebtedness amounts.
18
Lender’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 8-9, D.I. 21.
19
Id. at 9.
20
Id. at 10.
5
Lender has alleged and established that Borrower is in default under the Mortgage

and other Loan Documents, and that over $21,980,037.74 is currently due from

Borrower to Lender.21 Second, Lender argues that Borrower’s estoppel defense fails

because it did not plead any factual allegations to support this defense.22

Specifically, Borrower has failed to plead facts under this defense to implicate

payment or satisfaction, and it has failed to assert any factual allegations which

would give rise to a valid avoidance defense. 23 Third, Lender argues that Borrower’s

waiver defense fails because “Borrower has failed to identify the right that Lender

supposedly relinquished, and Borrower has otherwise failed to plead facts to support

a defense of waiver.”24 Specifically, Borrower has not pled facts under its waiver

defense to implicate payment or satisfaction, and it has failed to point to any

authority to support the proposition that Lender’s purported “waiver” would give

rise to a valid avoidance defense.25 Fourth, Lender argues that Borrower’s laches

defense fails because: (i) Borrower did not assert any facts to suggest that there was

an unreasonable delay by Lender in bringing its claim; (ii) Borrower has failed to

plead facts implicating payment or satisfaction; and (iii) Borrower has failed to point

to any authority to support the proposition that Lender’s purported “delay” would

21
Id.
22
Id. at 11.
23
Id.
24
Id. at 12.
25
Id.
6
give rise to a valid avoidance defense. 26 Fifth, Lender argues that Borrower’s

inequitable conduct/unclean hands defense fails because it has failed to plead facts

to support this defense. 27 Specifically, Borrower has failed to plead facts implicating

payment or satisfaction, and it has failed to point to any authority to support the

proposition that Lender’s purported “unclean hands” give rise to a valid avoidance

defense. 28

8. Similarly, Lender contends that Navient’s affirmative defenses also

fail. 29 Lender points out that the Delaware Superior Court has already concluded

that Navient’s interest in the Property is junior to Borrower’s interest because of

Delaware’s clear lien priority rules.30 And, Navient is a junior creditor with no

standing to challenge the agreements between Lender and Borrower. 31 Lender

argues that Navient’s culpable conduct defense fails because it has not stated any

facts supporting its allegations that Lender engaged in culpable conduct nor has it

presented any evidence that would establish the existence of any culpable conduct

on behalf of Lender. 32 Lender also argues that Navient’s other affirmative defense -

that there is ongoing discovery in a related case which may impact Lender’s rights -

26
Id. at 12-13.
27
Id. at 13.
28
Id. at 14.
29
Id.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id. at 15.
7
fails because it has not stated how and in what manner such discovery will impact

Lender’s rights in this action. 33 Further, Navient does not explain how the purported

discovery will overcome the prior judgment or otherwise impact Lender’s right to

foreclose its “unquestionably senior Mortgage lien.”34

9. Navient opposes Lender’s Motion. 35 It contends that the default and

attempted foreclosure constitute an improper attempt by Lender to prevent Navient

from exercising its rights as a judgment creditor.36 Navient adds that it should be

permitted to conduct discovery before the foreclosure is allowed to proceed so that

it may establish those rights and how they impact the foreclosure.37 Specifically,

Navient asserts that Lender’s Motion should be denied because Navient is entitled

to pursue discovery regarding the relationship between the Buccini Pollin

Group/Borrower and Lender. 38 Navient argues that legitimate questions remain

concerning: (i) alleged collusion between Lender and the Buccini Pollin

Group/Borrower relating to the declaration of default and efforts to avoid Navient’s

judgment; (ii) the potential diversion of Property assets intended to thwart Navient’s

efforts to collect on its judgment; (iii) alleged breaches of fiduciary duties owed by

33
Id. at 15-16.
34
Id. at 16.
35
Navient’s Resp. at 1, D.I. 25.
36
Id. at 2.
37
Id.
38
Id. at 7.
8
the Buccini Pollin Group/Borrower to Navient as a creditor; and (iv) which assets

will be impacted by the foreclosure proceeding and how such assets are to be

distributed as part of any foreclosure. 39

10. Navient contends that these issues are not merely speculative or

hypothetical.40 Navient asserts that it has already obtained evidence questioning the

timing and legitimacy of Lender’s declaration of default and this foreclosure

proceeding, given that there appears to be more than sufficient rent income to cover

the mortgage payments and other expenses associated with the Property. 41 Navient

insists that it has also uncovered evidence, including emails, suggesting that Lender

and the Buccini Pollin Group/Borrower have colluded to thwart Navient’s collection

of its judgment, and further discovery will shed light on these issues. 42 Navient also

insists that until discovery is concluded in the companion case, and this case, the

Property should not be foreclosed and sold. 43 Lastly, Navient adds that Borrower

has filed an answer denying the substantive allegations of Lender’s foreclosure

complaint, which included allegations of default and the assertion of affirmative

defenses.44 As a result, summary judgment should be precluded. 45

39
Id.
40
Id. at 8.
41
Id.
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
Id.
9
11. In its Reply to Navient, Lender primarily adds that no further discovery

or arguments concerning Navient’s purported interest in the Property can prevent

foreclosure of Lender’s Mortgage lien.46 Lender organizes its subsequent arguments

in five points. First, Lender contends that it is conclusive that its Mortgage lien has

priority over Navient’s purported lien under the prior judgment. 47 Second, Lender

contends that summary judgment should be entered in its favor because it has made

a prima facie foreclosure claim against Navient in the affidavits attached to its

briefs.48 Third, Lender contends that no discovery is needed to decide the

foreclosure issue.49 Further, the issues for which Navient seeks discovery –

communications between Lender, Borrower, and the Buccini Pollin Group regarding

the judgment and handling of rents and expenses – are utterly immaterial to the

question of whether Lender’s Mortgage lien is senior in priority to Navient’s lien

under the prior judgment.50 Additionally, Navient had ample opportunity to conduct

discovery in this case, but chose not to do so.51 And, to the extent that Navient has

disputes over discovery, those disputes should be resolved in the separate action

where they originated. 52 Fourth, Lender contends that Navient’s claims of collusion

46
Lender’s Reply to Navient at 1, D.I. 28.
47
Id. at 2.
48
Id. at 3.
49
Id. at 4.
50
Id.
51
Id. at 5.
52
Id.
10
are unsupported.53 Therefore, entry of summary judgment in Lender’s favor cannot

be prevented.54 Further, even if Navient could prove collusion, such allegations

would have no bearing on Lender’s lien priority or its right to foreclose.55 Moreover,

Navient’s claims of collusion fail to meet the standard for defeating a motion for

summary judgment as Navient has not presented any actual facts demonstrating a

genuine issue for trial. 56 Fifth, Lender contends that collateral estoppel and res

judicata preclude re-litigation of the priority issue.57

12. Borrower also opposes Lender’s Motion.58 Borrower contends there

genuine issues of material fact regarding the amount requested by Lender. 59 Next,

Borrower adds that: (i) Lender has failed to prove its entitlement to interest and

default interest on protective advances because the Loan Documents do not provide

for such interest nor has any proof of protective advances been provided; (ii) Lender

has calculated the default interest owed using the incorrect default interest rate under

the Loan Documents; and (iii) Lender has failed to clearly prove that the stated

amount of the Exit Fee is true and correct, as the Loan Documents are ambiguous

53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Id. at 5-6.
56
Id. at 6.
57
Id. at 7-8.
58
Borrower’s Resp. at 1, D.I. 27.
59
Id.
11
regarding its calculation.60 Borrower primarily contends that the contract is

ambiguous as to the damages, and the calculation of damages, due and owing to

Lender pursuant to the Loan Documents.61 Under this argument, Borrower makes

three sub-arguments. First, Borrower contends that Lender’s request for the

principal amount of $23,535,000.00 and the interest amount of $1,286,580.00, along

with several other amounts, is “unclear and unsupported” by the record produced by

Lender.62 Second, Borrower contends that the Loan Documents are ambiguous

regarding the calculation of the Exit Fee and Lender has failed to further articulate

how they arrived at the amount of $752,334.88.63 Third, Borrower contends that

Lender has failed to show its entitlement to any interest on protective advances in

the amount of $7,565.31 and default interest on these protective advances in the

amount of $6,304.43. 64

13. In its Reply to Borrower, 65 Lender reiterates its contention that it had

made a prima facie foreclosure claim against Borrower and summary judgment

60
Id. at 3.
61
Id. at 4.
62
Id. at 7.
63
Id. at 9.
64
Id. at 11.
65
The Supplemental Affidavit of Steven Cremer in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (“Cremer Affidavit”) was submitted with Lender’s Reply
to Borrower. To varying degrees, none of which are comprehensive, the Cremer
Affidavit includes some basis for calculating the Indebtedness.
12
should be entered in its favor. 66 Next, Lender replies that the Loan Documents are

unambiguous and make clear the amounts due and owing to Lender, including the

Exit Fee and interest on protective advances by Lender.67 Here, Lender argues that:

(i) the Loan Agreement is unambiguous in that Lender is immediately entitled to the

Exit Fee upon acceleration of the Loan; 68 (ii) the property protective advances made

by Lender are recoverable under the Loan Documents, with interest, and are properly

supported by the evidence presented by Lender;69 and (iii) 6 Del. C. § 2301 does not

prevent Lender from collecting interest at the rate set forth in the Loan Documents.70

15. Superior Court Civil Rule 56(c) provides that summary judgment is

appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”71 The moving party initially bears

the burden of demonstrating that the undisputed facts support its claims or

defenses.72 If the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving

party to show that there are material issues of fact to be resolved by the ultimate

66
Lender’s Reply to Borrower at 2, D.I. 28.
67
Id. at 6.
68
Id. at 7.
69
Id. at 8.
70
Id. at 10.
71
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c); Buckley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 139 A.3d 845,
847 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015), aff'd, 140 A.3d 431 (Del. 2016) (quoting Moore v.
Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979)).
72
Sizemore, 405 A.2d at 681.
13
factfinder.73 When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court's

function is to examine the record, including “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” in the

light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether genuine issues

of material fact exist “but not to decide such issues.” 74 Summary judgment will only

be appropriate if the Court finds there is no genuine issue of material fact. When

material facts are in dispute, or “it seems desirable to inquire more thoroughly into

the facts, to clarify the application of the law to the circumstances,” summary

judgment will not be appropriate.”75 However, when the facts permit a reasonable

person to draw but one inference, the question becomes one for decision as a matter

of law. 76

16. Before discussing Lender’s claims against Borrower, the Court

addresses any interest that Navient may have in the outcome of the Court’s decision

on this Motion. After reviewing the Opinion in Navient Solutions, LLC v. BPG

Office Partners XIII Iron Hill LLC,77 the Court does not agree with Navient that it

has lien priority over the Property. Furthermore, the Court does not see a valid basis

73
Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995).
74
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c); Merrill v. Crothall-Am., Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99-100 (Del.
1992).
75
Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 468-69 (Del. 1962) (citing Knapp v. Kinsey,
249 F.2d 797 (6th Cir. 1957)).
76
Wooten v. Kiger, 226 A.2d 238, 239 (Del. 1967).
77
315 A.3d 1164 (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
14
for Navient’s request for discovery on the foreclosure issue as it is not relevant to

the disposition of the actual issues before the Court. Navient is simply a junior

lienholder without rights against Lender, the senior lienholder.78

17. Ultimately, this Motion for Summary Judgment presents the Court with

the issue of whether an Event of Default under the Loan Documents occurred, and,

if so, what do the Loan Documents require in regard to the calculation of the

Indebtedness resulting from the Event of Default. First, on the issue of whether there

was an Event of Default under the Loan Documents, the Court finds there were

several. It agrees with Lender’s application of the facts to the Loan Documents, as

restated from Lender’s Opening Brief:

Under Section 5.22 of the Loan Agreement, Borrower is
prohibited from directly or indirectly creating, incurring or
assuming any indebtedness other than the (i) Debt or (ii)
unsecured trade payables incurred in the ordinary course
of business relating to the ownership and operation of the
Property. Further, pursuant to Section 5.27 of the Loan
Agreement, Borrower is prohibited from permitting any
Liens to exist on any of the Property without Lender’s
prior written consent. Under Section 8.1(h) of the Loan
Agreement, Borrower’s breach of any covenant contained
in Sections 5.22 or 5.27 of the Loan Agreement is an
immediate Event of Default under the Loan Documents.

On or about May 9, 2023, nearly six years after Lender
recorded the Mortgage, the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware entered a judgment against Borrower and in

78
The Court acknowledges the difficulty of Navient’s position. By seeking
redress for its legitimate claim against Borrower, it also triggered Borrower’s
default under the Loan Documents – one of the bases for this foreclosure action.
15
favor of Navient Solutions, LLC in the amount of
$839,034.06 (the “Judgment”). Plaintiff did not approve of
or consent to the Judgment. As a result of the Judgment,
Borrower has (i) incurred indebtedness other than the Debt
or unsecured trade payables without Lender’s prior written
consent and (ii) permitted a judgment lien to exist on the
Property without Lender’s prior written consent. The entry
of the Judgment against Borrower constitutes an
immediate Event of Default under the Loan Documents
(the “Judgment Event of Default”). Notably, since the
Judgment was entered after the recording of Lender’s
Mortgage, any lien on the Property created by the
Judgment is junior to Lender’s Mortgage lien. Following
the Judgment Event of Default, on or about September 11,
2023, Lender accelerated the indebtedness owed under the
Note and other Loan Documents (the “Notice of
Acceleration”). Borrower has not paid the accelerated
indebtedness.

Even if the Loan had not been accelerated, pursuant to that
certain Seventh Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as
of March 16, 2023, Borrower was required to pay the
balance of the principal, together with all accrued and
unpaid interest thereon, and all other amounts payable
under the Note, Loan Agreement, and other Loan
Documents on or before December 31, 2023 (the
“Maturity Date”).

Notwithstanding the acceleration of the Loan, Borrower
ultimately failed to repay the entire outstanding principal
balance of the Note on or before the Maturity Date,
together with interest thereon to the date of repayment and
all other amounts due and owing under the Loan
Documents. Even if the Loan had not been accelerated,
Borrower’s failure to pay the entire outstanding
indebtedness on or before the Maturity Date constitutes an
immediate additional Event of Default under the Loan
Documents. 79

79
Mot. for Summ. J. at 4-6, D.I. 21.
16
18. While Lender’s briefs and associated affidavits do not adequately

include the calculations for the amounts that make up the Indebtedness, the Court

finds that Lender has sufficiently identified that there is no genuine issue of material

fact over the triggering of an Event of Default under the Loan Documents.

Therefore, judgment as a matter of law is granted on the issue of whether Borrower

is in default. However, as to the Indebtedness resulting from the Event of Default,

the Court finds that further inquiry is required as to its proper calculation.

19. Lender’s Reply to Borrower and the associated Cremer Affidavit do not

adequately point the Court to Lender’s calculation method for the separate amounts

that make up the Indebtedness. The Court cannot substantiate Lender’s calculations

for the Indebtedness as both submissions lack detail as to structure, authority from

the Loan Documents, and exact calculations. Thus, the Court finds it desirable to

inquire more thoroughly into the exact amount of the Indebtedness. The Court

encourages the parties to confer in an effort to reach an agreement. Failing that, the

Court is prepared to resolve the issue upon appropriate application identifying

specific areas of disagreement, with the parties’ positions supported by specific

calculations based on specific references to the Loan Documents.

17
THEREFORE, BVFL I FI LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

GRANTED in part as to default, but DENIED in part as to damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

18