Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Gillette

Superior Court of Delaware

May 3, 2017

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, d.b.a CHRISTIANA TRUST, not individually but as Trustee for Ventures Trust, Plaintiff
v.
WENDY GILLETTE, Defendant

          Submitted: April 26, 2017

         Upon Defendant's Motion for Reargument. Denied.

          Antranig N. Garibian, Esq., Garibian Law Offices, P.C., Attorney for Plaintiff

          John R. Weaver, Esq., John R. Weaver, P.A., Attorney for Defendant

          ORDER

          Richard F. Stokes, Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On April 5, 2017, Defendant Wendy Gillette ("Defendant") timely filed her Motion for Reargument concerning the Court's March 29, 2017 memorandum opinion granting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant contends that the Court erred by failing to recognize that relief could not be granted under the mortgage contract because a condition precedent had not been satisfied. On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, d.b.a. Christiana Trust, not individually but as Trustee for Ventures Trust ("Plaintiff) filed its response to Defendant's Motion, which in large part pointed out that the Defendant's argument was not raised prior to this Motion and that Delaware law regarding notice of a mortgage foreclosure was correctly applied.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The standard of review for a motion for reargument under Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is well settled law. Such a motion "will be denied unless 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."[1] Furthermore, a motion for reargument is not intended to raise new arguments which could have been raised at an earlier point in the proceedings.[2]

         III. DISCUSSION

         Here, Defendant is seeking to raise new arguments in her Motion for Reargument that were not asserted in her Answer to the Complaint. She takes issue with the Court's ruling that it is well-settled law in Delaware that all notice requirements associated with a scire facias sur mortgage action will be satisfied by the filing of a complaint for foreclosure. Defendant argues that "it is also well-settled Delaware law that a party to a contract must satisfy all conditions precedent to avail said party of any right to remedies under the contract."[3] She further claims that satisfaction of the notice provision in Paragraph 22 of the Mortgage Agreement was a condition precedent to the contract.[4] Defendant distinguishes the cases cited in the Court's decision granting summary judgment to the Plaintiff on the ground that the contracts underlying those cases did not contain notice provisions.[5] This argument was not presented in Defendant's Answer to the Complaint.[6] Therefore, the issue has been waived.

         Moreover, even if this argument had not been waived, Defendant would not prevail. Defendant's reliance on basic contract law principles to assert that a condition precedent was not met ignores the fact that Delaware law on this issue is dispositive. As stated in the decision granting summary judgment, "It is well-settled law in Delaware that 'the filing of a complaint for foreclosure "constitutes notice of the most unequivocal character that the mortgagee wishes to avail himself of the acceleration provision of the mortgage.'""[7] Given the clearness of the law, it would be inapposite to find that proper notice had not been given in this case and that the failure of the condition precedent should allow Defendant to prevail.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that no controlling precedent or legal principle has been overlooked and that there has been no misapprehension of the law. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.