BON AYRE LAND LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Co., Appellant,
BON AYRE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
Submitted: March 6, 2015
Upon Appellant’s Motion for Reargument and Reconsideration.
L. Vincent Ramunno, Esquire of Ramunno & Ramunno, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for Appellant.
James G. McGiffin, Jr., Esquire of Community Legal Aid Society, Inc., Dover, Delaware; attorney for Appellee.
WILLIAM L. WITHAM, JR., RESIDENT JUDGE.
Upon consideration of the Appellant's Motion for Reargument and Reconsideration, the Appellee's opposition, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
1. On February 26, 2015, the Court entered judgment against the Appellant, Bon Ayre Land LLC ("Appellant"), finding the proposed rent increase did not comply with the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act ("Act"). The Appellant timely filed this motion thereafter.
2. A motion for reargument seeks reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgments of law. A motion for reargument will be denied unless the moving party has demonstrated that the court has "overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision." Specifically, "[a] motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the Court, nor will the Court consider new arguments that the movant could have previously raised."
3. The issues raised in the Appellant's Motion for Reargument were considered by the Court in making its original decision. An independent review of the record showed the Appellant did not comply with the statutory mandates of 25 Del. C. § 7043(b). Contrary to the Appellant's arguments, the Court was not required to give any deference to the Arbitrator's decision. As this Court's February 26th Order explained, it is a general rule of statutory interpretation that legislation is to be accorded prospective effect unless the General Assembly makes its intention clear to give it retroactive effect. The General Assembly expressed no such intention. Accordingly, the Court exercised its appellate review under the Act as it existed at the time of the arbitrator's decision and the Appellant's notice of appeal. At that time, the relevant portion of the Act – 25 Del. C. § 7044 – instructed this Court to decide the appeal "on the record without a trial de novo."
4. The Appellant also argues the Court erred in failing to schedule oral argument. Oral argument is granted at the discretion of the Court and in the present case, the Court decided it was neither necessary nor helpful.
5. Since the Appellant has not met the standard for granting a motion for ...