Opinion
C.A. No. 97L-12-049-1-WTQ.
Submitted: July 14, 2000.
Decided: August 1, 2000.
Letter Opinion and Order on Diane Shorter's Motion for Reargument MOTION DENIED .
Gentlemen:
This is the Court's Letter Opinion and Order on tenant Diane Shorter's Motion for Reargument. For the reasons stated herein, that Motion is DENIED.
On July 7, 2000, this Court issued an Opinion in the above-mentioned case. In that Opinion, this Court held that First National Bank was entitled to possession of the property located at 108 Cannonball Lane and the tenant in possession, Diane Shorter, had to move out of the house 15 days from the date of the Opinion. Ms. Shorter has filed a Motion for Reargument, claiming that there is no urgency in the Plaintiffs desire to regain possession of the property because First National Bank delayed 18 months before it actually foreclosed on the property after obtaining a judgment. Ms. Shorter asks this Court to exercise its discretion and allow her to remain a tenant until the expiration of her lease in November of this year. Ms. Shorter also argues that the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if she remains on the property for an additional four months.
"A motion for reargument is the proper device for seeking reconsideration by the Trial Court of its findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment. . . . The manifest purpose of all Rule 59 motions is to afford the Trial Court an opportunity to correct errors prior to appeal. . . ." Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, Del. Supr., 260 A.2d 701, 702 (1969). See also Bochnowski v. Sheth, Del. Super., 92C-05-023, Graves, J. (June 22, 1994). A Motion for Reargument is not a device for raising new arguments or stringing out the length of time for making an argument. Murphy v. State Farm Ins. Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 96C-02-243, Quillen, J. (July 24, 1997). It will be denied unless the court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or unless the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would affect the outcome of the decision. Interim Health Care v. Fournier, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 13003, Jacobs, V.C. (Mar. 25, 1994), Mem. Op. at 2.
In this case, Ms. Shorter has not pointed out any instance where the Court misapprehended the law or the facts such that it would affect the outcome of the decision. Instead, Ms. Shorter seeks a new and different decision that will allow her to remain a tenant on the property until the expiration of her lease. While the Court is sympathetic to Ms. Shorter's predicament, in that she has to endure the hassle of moving before the end of her tenancy, First National Bank is rightfully entitled to possession of the property. The pendency of this action has been more than generous to Mrs. Shorter. First National Bank appears to want immediate possession of the property because it has vigorously pursued this action to get possession. Ms. Shorter has shown no error of law or fact in the original Opinion that warrants a grant of reargument.
One further point. Ms. Shorter has been on notice at least since May 15, 2000 (the date when this the Motion was submitted for decision) that there was a possibility that she could be forced to move out. If anything, in balancing the equities, First National Bank has been prejudiced to a greater extent than Ms. Shorter because it has not had possession of a property it has rightfully owned since January 11, 2000. If Ms. Shorter wishes to remain on the property until November, she must reach some sort of an agreement with First National Bank to allow her to stay because First National Bank owns the property and Ms. Shorter does not have a lease with First National Bank. Therefore, First National Bank will be entitled to possession of the premises 15 days from the date of this Opinion denying Reargument.
For the foregoing reasons, Diane Shorter's Motion for Reargument is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.