Jerzy Wirth v. Blake J. Edwards

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: C.A. No. 2024-0144-BWD
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BONNIE W. DAVID COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

Date Submitted: November 24, 2025 Date Decided: December 8, 2025

Jerzy Wirth Blake J. Edwards 312 Riblett Lane 1303 Chalet Drive Wilmington, DE 19808 Wilmington, DE 19808

Beau A. Edwards 1303 Chalet Drive Wilmington, DE 19808

RE: Jerzy Wirth v. Blake J. Edwards, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0144-BWD

Dear Litigants:

This letter responds to plaintiff Jerzy Wirth’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Final

Clarification and, in the Alternative, Motion for Re-argument Under Rule 59(f) filed

with the Court on November 24, 2025 (the “Motion”). Dkt. 114. I write for the

parties, who are familiar with this matter, and refer other readers to the Court’s June

13, 2025 post-trial oral ruling for a more detailed description of the pertinent factual

background. See Dkt. 107.

Plaintiff and defendants Blake J. Edwards and Beau A. Edwards each own a

one-third interest in property located at 1303 Chalet Drive in Wilmington, Delaware

(the “Property”). Plaintiff acquired his one-third interest in the Property from minor Jerzy Wirth v. Blake J. Edwards, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0144-BWD December 8, 2025 Page 2 of 4

children B.E. and G.E. (together, the “Minor Defendants”) pursuant to a Court-

approved settlement in which Plaintiff purchased the Minor Defendants’ respective

one-sixth interests in the Property in exchange for a cash payment. Dkt. 83. Plaintiff

attempted to acquire Blake J. Edwards and Beau A. Edwards’ interests in the

Property under two agreements for the sale of the Property, but the Court invalidated

those agreements as unconscionable in its post-trial ruling.

On October 22, 2025, the Court entered an Order Imposing Equitable Lien

(the “Initial Order”) imposing an equitable lien in Plaintiff’s favor against the

Property in the amount of $112,697.33. Dkt. 109. On November 17, 2025, the Court

entered an Order Modifying Equitable Lien (the “Modified Order”) increasing the

amount of the equitable lien against the Property to $160,784.60. Dkt. 113.

The Motion asks the Court to clarify how the equitable lien against the

Property will be satisfied. To be clear, one-half of the equitable lien shall be satisfied

from Blake J. Edwards’ one-third interest in the Property and one-half of the

equitable lien shall be satisfied from Beau A. Edwards’ one-third interest in the

Property. To the extent the Motion seeks clarification of that issue, it is GRANTED.

To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Motion also argues that the Court should not have adjusted the equitable

lien to account for the Minor Defendants’ respective one-sixth (collective one-third) Jerzy Wirth v. Blake J. Edwards, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0144-BWD December 8, 2025 Page 3 of 4

interests in the Property. The Initial Order and the Modified Order both explained

that the amount of the equitable lien reflects two-thirds of the total amount that

Plaintiff paid toward the Property, representing Blake J. Edwards and Beau A.

Edwards’ proportionate share of gains under the unconscionable agreements. Dkts.

109, 113. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover gains that the Minor Defendants received

because (1) the settlement extinguished Plaintiff’s claims against the Minor

Defendants1 and (2) in any event, the Motion offers no basis to charge the Minor

Defendants’ share of gains against Blake J. Edwards and Beau A. Edwards’ interests

in the Property. Such an order would unfairly require Blake J. Edwards and Beau

A. Edwards to reimburse Plaintiff for more than their proportionate share of his

expenditures.

The Motion asks whether the Court considered certain evidence, which

Plaintiff labels the “BPO Evidence,” that was submitted after trial. It did not. In its

post-trial ruling, the Court permitted Plaintiff to supplement the record with evidence

“proving the amounts he paid toward the [P]roperty[.]”2 The Court did not permit

1 See Dkt. 55 ¶¶ 3–5, 9. 2 Tr. of 6-13-2025 Trial at 185:6–11 (“Although Wirth did not present evidence at trial proving the amounts he paid toward the property, I will permit him to supplement the record with that evidence within 30 days, and I will enter an appropriate order implementing this ruling after that.”), Dkt. 107. Plaintiff also did not introduce or discuss Jerzy Wirth v. Blake J. Edwards, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0144-BWD December 8, 2025 Page 4 of 4

additional evidence with respect to any other issue. Accordingly, the Court did not,

and will not, consider Plaintiff’s belated submission of other evidence.

Sincerely,

/s/ Bonnie W. David

Bonnie W. David Vice Chancellor

Exhibits 13, C, E, F, or G at a subsequent evidentiary hearing held on October 16 to address the terms and amount of the equitable lien. Dkt. 108.