Fulton Bank, N.A. v. Hearthstone Manor I, LLC

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: August 20, 2018
• Docket: N17C-12-104 SKR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Fulton Bank, N.A., ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) C.A. No.: Nl7C-12-104 SKR ) Hearthstone Manor I, LLC, Hearthstone ) Manor II, LLC, Key Properties ) Group, LLC, Country Life Homes, Inc., ) Elmer G. Fannin, and Mary Ann Fannin, ) ) Defendants. ) M

This Q__O+kday of August, 2018, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Reargumentl, Plaintiff’ s Opposition to Motion for Reargumentz, and exhibits attached thereto, it appears to the Court that:

l. On August 7, 2018, Defendants moved for reargument of this Court’s Order, dated August 6, 2018, granting Plaintift`s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the principal amount owed by Defendants on Commercial Loan Account No. XXXXXX6-001.

2. The Court’s standard of review on a motion for reargument is Well-settled.

A motion for reargument “Will be denied unless the Court has overlooked a

1 Trans. ID. 62321194. 2 Trans. ID. 62345267,

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.”3 A motion for reargument “is not intended to rehash the arguments already decided by the Court.”4

3. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the Court either “overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles,” or that it “misapprchended the law or facts” such as would have changed the outcome of the August 6 Order. Instead, Defendants have rehashed old arguments made in their Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants have also purported to introduce new documents which they failed to address in the previous proceeding5 Neither approach is appropriate on their Motion for Reargument.

Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Reargument is ENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sldzidon-K./Rennic, Judge

3 Kennea’y v. [nvacare Corp., 2006 WL 488590, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2006) (internal citation omitted).

4 Id.

5 Defendants could have, and should have, submitted a Rule 56(f) affidavit in the previous proceeding, if, as they contend in their Motion for Reargument, they were unable to obtain the necessary material to rebut Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. But they have failed to do so.