Thorpe v. Ingram

Full title: BETTY F. THORPE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM P. INGRAM, and MARGARET ANNE…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

Date published: Jan 10, 2014

C.A. No: 97C-02-016 (RBY) (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 10, 2014)

Opinion

C.A. No: 97C-02-016 (RBY)

01-10-2014

BETTY F. THORPE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM P. INGRAM, and MARGARET ANNE INGRAM, Defendants.

Noel E. Primos, Esquire, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware for Plaintiff. William P. Ingram, and Margaret Anne Ingram, Pro se.

Robert B. Young

Upon Consideration of

Defendants' Motion for Reargument

DENIED

ORDER

Noel E. Primos, Esquire, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware for Plaintiff. William P. Ingram, and Margaret Anne Ingram, Pro se. Young, J.

SUMMARY

For the reasons respectively set forth below, Defendants' Motion for Reargument is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts regarding this matter are contained in the Court's Order of October 22, 2013, and are incorporated herein.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Civil Rule 59(e), a Motion for Reargument shall be filed within 5 days after service of the decision on which it is based; in which event, to be successful, the moving party must show that the Court has overlooked or misapplied a precedent or legal principles, or misapprehended the facts affecting the outcome.

DISCUSSION

In this Motion, Defendants have attempted to assert, for the first time, that a party is necessary to this action. Plaintiff's position is neither timely raised nor accurate. Bell vs. Fisher, 2012 Del. Super. LEXIS 241.

Plaintiff's arguments concerning the merits of the case present nothing which was factual matter, was misapprehended or misapplied. Hence, Defendants' various arguments on these asserted bases are without merit. Friends of Paladin vs. New Castle County Bd. Of Adjustment, 2006 Del. Super. LEXIS 434.

Finally, given the filing date of the Court's opinion on October 22, 2013, Defendants had, pursuant to Civil Rule 59(e), the time frame of 10-23, 10-24, 1025, 10-28, and 10-29 within which to file any Motion for Reargument. Defendants failed to comply with that requirement.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Reargument is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Robert B. Young

J.
RBY/lmc
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Mr. Primos, Esq.

Mr. & Mrs. Ingram

Opinion Distribution

File