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.

Beck v. Greim

Superior Court of Delaware

October 22, 2019

ANDREA C. BECK, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN GREIM, JEFFREY HORVAT, : AMY RETZLAFF, PETER RETZLAFF, and ANNA MARIE HANNA, Defendants.

          Submitted: September 27, 2019

         Upon Defendants' Rule 50(a) Motion for Directed Verdict Granted.

          Andrea C. Beck, Plaintiff, pro se

          Brian T. McNelis, Esquire of Young & McNelis, Dover, Delaware; attorney for Defendants.

          ORDER

          WILLIAM L. WITHAM, JR., RESIDENT JUDGE

         This bench trial resulted from an ongoing dispute between the Plaintiff, Andrea C. Beck ("Ms. Beck"), and Defendants John Greim, Jeffrey Horvat, Amy Retzlaff, Peter Retzlaff and Anna Marie Hanna ("the Defendants"), directors and officers of the homeowners association of Bombay Woods Maintenance Corporation.[1]

         At the conclusion of Ms. Beck's case, the Defendants renewed their motion, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 50, for a directed verdict on three grounds. First, Ms. Beck failed to proffer any evidence that any statements or actions by the Defendants took place after the Court's determination of a statute of limitations deadline of November 30, 2014. Second, that Ms. Beck has not proffered any evidence that any documents in question were published to a third party. Third, that no evidence has been presented as to actual damages.

         Ms. Beck generally argues that evidence has been presented by way of documents of the Bombay Woods Maintenance Corporation designed for the corporation website before November 30, 2014 and thereafter by way of republication. She argues that the slanderous activities of the Defendants began before November of 2014 and that she was not aware of some of the actions of the Defendants prior to discovery in this case. No evidence has been presented that any of the activities of the Defendants were libel or slander per se.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         1. Rule 50(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law provides:

(1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the Court may determine the issue against the party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.
(2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment.[2]

         When the Court determines that, under the facts presented, no reasonable juror could find in favor of the plaintiff, the Court should grant the motion.

         DISCUSSION

         2. A defamation claim consists of two possible torts - libel (written) and slander (spoken).[3] ...


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.