Opinion
C.A. No. 05A-08-009-JRS.
Date Issued: October 5, 2006. Revised and Corrected: October 13, 2006.
Revised only to reflect the proper attorneys of record.
On Petitioner's Motion for Reargument. DENIED.
Richard L. Abbott, Esquire, Abbott Law Firm, LLC, Hockessin, DE.
William E. Manning, Esquire, Buchanan, Ingersoll Rooney, Wilmington, DE.
Brian J. Merritt, Esquire, New Castle County Government Center, New Castle, DE.
Dear Counsel:
The Petitioners, Friends of Paladin, Roy V. Jackson, John Severin and Marie Sims, ("Petitioners"), have moved for reargument pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 59 (e) in connection with the Court's denial of their Petition for Writ of Certiorari ("the Petition") by Opinion and Order dated September 12, 2006. The Petitioners argue that the Court misconstrued the nature of a decision by the New Castle County Department of Land Use ("the Department of Land Use") that determined the historical significance of a stone wall located on property adjacent to property owned by Petitioners. The characterization of the Department of Land Use's decision as either a "zoning decision" or a "subdivision decision" is determinative of the appropriate course any appeal of the decision should have taken. The Court concluded that the Department of Land Use made a zoning decision when it determined that the wall was historic. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the New Castle County Board of Adjustment ("Board of Adjustment"), the appellate body to which appeals of "zoning decisions" should be directed, had subject matter over the appeal of the Department of Land Use decision.
Petitioners argue that the Court: (1) ignored the intent of the Delaware General Assembly in its interpretation of certain statutes relating to zoning and subdivision matters; (2) misconstrued the County's regulations regarding zoning and subdivision matters; (3) "misapplied" Delaware Supreme Court precedent; and (4) improperly interpreted the record regarding the County's own characterization of the nature of the decision rendered by its Department of Land Use with respect to the stone wall. Based on these claimed errors, Petitioners allege that the Court incorrectly concluded that the Department of Land Use made a zoning decision and that any appeal of that decision was properly directed to the Board of Adjustment.
The Respondents, the Board of Adjustment and Edgewood Village, L.L.C., argue that reargument is not appropriate because each of the Petitioners' claims of error simply restate or recast previously-made and considered arguments of the Petitioners. After carefully reviewing the parties' initial submissions relating to the Petition, the Court's decision on the Petition, and the motion sub judice, the Court agrees that reargument is not appropriate here.
The Court's standard of review on a motion for reargument is well-settled:
As this Court recalled in Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., reargument will usually be denied unless it is shown that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts such as would effect [sic] the outcome of the decision. The Delaware Supreme Court has also stated that motions for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the Court.
Norfleet v. Mid-Atlantic Realty Co., Inc., 2001 Del. Super. LEXIS 328, at *2-3 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the Court either "overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have controlling [a]ffect or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts such as would effect the outcome of the decision." Instead, the Petitioners have simply rehashed arguments made in their initial papers submitted in support of their Petition. The motion for reargument, therefore, must be DENIED.
Id.