Opinion
C. A. K24M-03-017 REG
09-03-2024
BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING CORPORATION 2007-3, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE Plaintiff, v. JAMES COPPEDGE AND KRISHNA JOHNSON Defendants.
Melanie J. Thompson, Esquire and Darlene Wyatt Blythe, Esquire, Orlans PC, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiff. James Coppedge and Krishna Johnson, Pro Se Defendants.
Submitted: August 7, 2024
Upon Defendants' Petition to Vacate Void Judgment - DENIED.
Melanie J. Thompson, Esquire and Darlene Wyatt Blythe, Esquire, Orlans PC, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
James Coppedge and Krishna Johnson, Pro Se Defendants.
ORDER
RENETA L. GREEN-STREETT, JUDGE
This 3rd day of September, 2024, upon consideration of Defendants' "Petition to Vacate Void Judgment," it appears to the Court that:
1. On May 22, 2024, this Court heard oral argument regarding Plaintiff Banc of America Funding's Petition for Writ of Possession. The Court granted Plaintiff's petition, but stayed execution for 90 days to allow Defendants sufficient time to set their affairs in order.
See D.I. 1 (Mar. 13, 2024); see also D.I. 13 (May 24, 2024).
D.I. 13.
2. Defendants filed a "Petition to Stay Proceeding Due to Appeal" on July 23, 2024. On August 6, 2024, the Court issued an order denying Defendants' "Petition to Stay Proceeding Due to Appeal." The Court found Defendants were unlikely to succeed on appeal. Further, the Court found Defendants failed to provide evidence they would suffer irreparable harm if the Court declined to grant their petition.
D.I. 19 (July 23,2024).
See Banc of Am, Funding Corp, v. James Coppedge and Krishna Johnson, 2024 WL 3691980, at *1-3 (Del. Super. Aug. 6, 2024); see also D.I. 24 (Aug. 6, 2024).
Coppedge, 2024 WL 3691980, at *2.
Id.
3. On August 7, 2024, Defendants filed the instant "Petition to Vacate Void Judgment" (the "Petition"). A review of the Petition shows Defendants largely restate the same arguments they have made in prior filings with the Court. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Petition as a motion for reargument under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e).
D.I. 26 (Aug. 7, 2024).
See U.S. Bank National Association v. Coppedge (Del. Super. May 5, 2015) (finding a similarly repetitive motion should be analyzed under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e)).
4. Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) permits the Court to reconsider its findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgments. "The moving party must demonstrate that the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision." A motion for reargument is not an opportunity for the moving party "to rehash arguments already decided by the Court or to present new arguments not previously raised."
Kappa Alpha Educ. Found., Inc, v. City of Newark, 2020 WL 62618, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 6, 2020) (citing Hessler, Inc, v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969)).
Id. (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Lamourine v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 2007 WL 3379048, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 24, 2007)).
Id.
5. The Court did not overlook a controlling precedent or legal principle, nor has it misapprehended the law or facts in a manner affecting the outcome of its decision. Defendants do not point the Court to any controlling legal precedent. Defendants reiterate many of the same "disjointed" and "confusing" arguments raised in prior filings with this and other courts.The Court has already considered, and rejected, those arguments.
See Coppedge v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 35 A.3d 418 (Del. 2011) (TABLE); see also Coppedge V, U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 103 A.3d 514 (Del. 2014) (TABLE).
6. THEREFORE , Defendants' "Petition to Vacate Void Judgment" is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.