Opinion
C.A. No. 00L-10-077 WLW
Submitted: January 16, 2002
Decided: February 21, 2002
Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument. Denied.
Jeffrey S. Welch, Esquire, Welch Associates, Wilmington, Delaware, attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Douglas A. Shachtman, Esquire, Douglas A. Shachtman Associates, Wilmington, Delaware, attorneys for the Defendants.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff, Wilmington Trust Company, filed a foreclosure complaint on October 23, 2000 against the Defendants, Theophilus R. Nix and Lulu Mae Nix, to obtain a judgment. This complaint was later amended on November 15, 2000 with Plaintiff claiming an unpaid principal balance of $152,221.16 on a Wilmington Trust first mortgage and note dated November 5, 1992, together with past due interest in the amount of $5,967.81, a per diem of $34.93, past due late charges in the amount of $699.10, recording fees in the amount of $33.10, and attorneys' fees together with court costs. Plaintiff also seeks a judgment on a second mortgage (the equity line) and note claiming that the Defendants owe $24,200.88 in principle, $157.73 in interest, a per diem of $6.57, and late charges together with attorneys' fees and costs.
2. In April 2001, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which finally came before the Court on November 2, 2001 wherein Plaintiff submitted an Affidavit stating the amount due as of November 2nd on both obligations, together with interest, late fees, attorneys' fees and other costs. This affidavit ignored what was due as of December 1, 2000. This Court issued its Order on December 28, 2001 denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
3. Plaintiff submitted a motion for reargument on January 4, 2002 and supplemented the record with an additional two-page letter dated January 8, 2002 which contains additional arguments. This is in violation of the Superior Court New Castle County Civil Case Management Plan Section IV.A.2.c in exceeding the four-page limit. This Court will ignore the January 8th letter insofar as it presents new arguments.
4. The purpose of a motion for reargument is to review improper findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment after a non-jury trial to give "the trial court an opportunity to correct errors prior to an appeal."
Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, Del. Super. 260 A.2d 701, 702 (1969). "A motion for reargument is the proper device for seeking reconsideration by the Trial Court of its finding of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment, after a non-jury trial. The manifest purpose of all Rule 59 motions is to afford the Trial Court an opportunity to correct errors prior to an appeal . . . ."
Under Delaware law, 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 affect the outcome of the decision." A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court.
Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Cas. Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgely, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994) (citing Wilshire Rest. Group, Inc. v. Ramada, Inc., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 11506, Jacobs, V.C. (Dec. 19, 1990) (Letter Op.)).
Whitsett v. Capital School Dist., Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-04-032, Vaughn, J. (Jan. 28, 1999) (citations omitted).
If a party has failed to raise an issue below that could have been addressed by the Court, the Court will not entertain new arguments by the parties raised for the first time in a motion for reargument.
5. While it may be that Defendants have not successfully brought all contractual payments current as of the required date, this Court finds that Plaintiff merely seeks to rehash the arguments already decided by the Court and that the Court has not misapprehended the law or the facts such as would affect the outcome of the decision reached by this Court on December 28, 2001.
Id.
Therefore, an evidentiary hearing will be held to determine all interest and other costs due as of December 1, 2000; whether the $8,000 would be sufficient to reinstate the first mortgage; and whether the Defendants have a right to reinstate the equity line. Plaintiff is free to submit appropriate affidavits in lieu of proffered testimony at the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.