From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mahmoud v. Al-Naser

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Apr 27, 2005
C.A. No. 04C-12-092 SCD (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2005)

Opinion

C.A. No. 04C-12-092 SCD.

April 27, 2005.


ORDER


This 27th of April, 2005, having considered the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, and the response thereto filed by Plaintiff, it appears that:

1. Plaintiff is the former husband of the Defendant.

2. At the time of the property division in the Family Court, Plaintiff (Respondent in that action) argued that a debt existed which should be considered in disposing of the marital assets.

3. The Family Court ruled that a claim by a third-party creditor was not within its jurisdiction. The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court which affirmed, noting that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of third-parties, as such claims are "within the common law jurisdiction of the Superior Court. . . ."

Family Court of the State of Delaware, File No. CN02-09157, Nov. 19, 2003, Connor, J.

Mahmoud v. Al-Naser, No. 595, 2003, Delaware Supreme Court, May 28, 2004 (order), p. 4, citing Eberly v. Eberly, 489 A.2d 433, 444 (Del. 1985).

4. Plaintiff asserts in his pleadings that he is the real party in interest in this action because he has repaid the debt on behalf of both parties.

Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 6, p. 1, ¶ a.

5. Defendant seeks dismissal on the grounds that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction over this alleged obligation.

6. Delaware has clear standards for granting a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. The court must accept all well-pled allegations as true. The court must then apply a broad sufficiency test: whether a plaintiff may recover under any "reasonable conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint." Further, a complaint "will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact." If there is a basis upon which the plaintiff may recover, the motion is denied.

Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978).

Id. (internal citation omitted).

Diamond State Tel. Co. v. University of Delaware, 269 A.2d 52, 58 (Del. 1970).

Id., see also Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d at 968.

7. It appears that plaintiff has attempted to avoid the argument that he is not the real party in interest in this litigation by paying the debt. By doing that he has taken the matter out of the jurisdiction of this court. It is alleged that the debt accrued during the marriage. The issue was considered and rejected by the Family Court. That decision is final. As such, the issue cannot be relitigated in this Court, it is res judicata.

See M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513, 520 (Del. 1999) ("Res judicata bars a suit involving the same parties based on the same action."); see also Second National Bldg. Loan, Inc. v. Sussex Trust Co., 508 A.2d 902, 906 (Del.Super. 1985) (". . . res judicata is designed to assure finality of judgments by barring the maintenance of a second lawsuit when a court of competent jurisdiction has already rendered a final judgment upon the merits in the same matter involving the same parties . . .").

WHEREFORE, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Mahmoud v. Al-Naser

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Apr 27, 2005
C.A. No. 04C-12-092 SCD (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2005)
Case details for

Mahmoud v. Al-Naser

Case Details

Full title:MAHMOUD A. MAHMOUD Plaintiff, v. SUSAN F. AL-NASER Defendant

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Apr 27, 2005

Citations

C.A. No. 04C-12-092 SCD (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2005)