One Pie Investments, LLC v. Kina Lane Whitfield

── One Pie Investments, LLC v. Kina Lane Whitfield ── Court: Superior Court of Delaware Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ONE PIE INVESTMENT LLC ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. N22L-12-041 SPL ) KINA WHITFIELD A/K/A ) KINA LANE WHITFIELD ) A/K/A KINA LANE ) ENTERPRISES, LLC, a ) CALIFORNIA LIMITED ) LIABILITY COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) Submitted: January 16, 2026 Decided: April 8, 2027 MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon Defendant, Kina Whitfield A/K/A Kina Lane Whitfield A/K/A Kina Lane Enterprises, LLC’s Motion to Set Aside Sheriff Sale, DENIED. Upon Plaintiff, One Pie Investment LLC’s Motion to Confirm the Sheriff Sale, GRANTED. Edward J. Fornias, III, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF EJ FORNIAS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff, One Pie Investments, LLC. Kina Lane Whitfield, Self-Represented. 1 LUGG, J. 1 The Court informed Lane Whitfield throughout this litigation that, as a self- represented litigant, she may not represent artificial entities. See Tigani on Behalf of Irrevocable Trust for Benefit of Tigani v. Director, 2020 WL 5237278, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020) (artificial entities must generally be represented by counsel). Despite being given time to do so, she has elected not to retain counsel on behalf of these entities. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, the Court has considered the arguments as they may apply to all defendants in this case.  BACKGROUND On July 30, 2021, Kina Lane Enterprises (“Lane Enterprises”) borrowed $150,000 from World Business Lenders, LLC (“WBL”). 2 Lane Enterprises pledged a package of five residential properties as security for the loan; 3 Kina Lane Whitfield (“Lane Whitfield”) signed as guarantor of the loan. 4 Lane Enterprises failed to make payments under the loan and, on December 21, 2022, WBL filed a complaint in this Court to enforce the mortgage instrument.5 The Court entered default judgment in favor of WBL and directed the New Castle County Sheriff to schedule the sale of the five properties.6 The sale, scheduled for August 8, 2023, was stayed,7 and the Sheriff subsequently rescheduled the sale for November 14, 2023.8 The day before the November sale, to continue negotiating the outstanding debt, Lane Whitfield wired $20,000 to WBL; WBL postponed the sheriff’s sale to the next available date. 9 2 D.I. 1, Ex. C at 6. 3 Id. at 18; D.I. 1, Ex. A. 4 D.I. 1, Ex. E. 5 D.I. 1. 6 D.I. 11. 7 D.I. 12. 8 D.I. 18. 9 D.I. 32, Ex. 10. 1  Meanwhile, WBL learned that Goldsby Enterprises, LLC (“Goldsby Enterprises”) was added to the deeds of four of the five pledged parcels and sought to vacate the Court’s default judgment and amend the Complaint to add that entity as a defendant to perfect title.10 The Court granted the motion.11 On March 11, 2024, WBL assigned the right to enforce the mortgage to One Pie Investment LLC (“OPI”), 12 and WBL and OPI stipulated to OPI’s substitution as plaintiff in the case. 13 On March 18, 2024, OPI filed a motion under Superior Court Rule 60(b) seeking relief from the Court’s order vacating the default judgment.14 OPI posited the judgment did not need to be vacated to add Goldsby Enterprises as a defendant.15 After hearing from the parties, the Court granted OPI’s motion and reinstated its default order. 16 After OPI secured a default judgment against all interested parties (including Goldsby Enterprises), the Sheriff scheduled a sale of the five properties for August 13, 2024.17