NVR, Inc. v. Pearce; NVR, Inc. v. Pearce

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 6, 2026
• Docket: N24J-01786 FJJ; N24J-02658 FJJ
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NVR, Inc., ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No.: N24J-01786 FJJ Zachary J. Pearce, ) Defendant, ) and

NVR, Inc., ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No.: N24J-02658 FJJ Zachary J. Pearce and Robin ) Pearce, ) Defendants, )

ORDER On Defendant Zachary Pearce’s Motion For Reargument

Having considered Defendant, Zachary J. Pearce’s Motion for Reargument

it appears to the Court that:

1. On February 25, 2026 this Court issued an Opinion and Order

denying Defendant Zachary Pearce’s Motion to Vacate Two Confessed

judgments under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) .

2. On February 26, 2026 Defendant filed a Motion for

Reargument. First, Pearce contends that this Court misapprehended the

legal effect of the December 8, 2025 Delaware Court of Chancery decision in NVR, Inc. v Spring Oaks Development Purchaser, LLC. 1 Second, Pearce

raises for the first time that the confessed judgment against him is invalid

because of the absence of a personal guarantee and the lack of any

consideration flowing to him personally.

3. The purpose of moving for reargument is to seek

“reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of

law.” “Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party

demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that

would have a controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the

facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision.” “A motion for

reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already

decided by the court.” To the extent the moving Defendants asserted issues

that were not raised in the submissions in support of its motion, new

arguments may not be presented for the first time in a motion for

reargument. A court cannot “re-weigh” evidence on a motion for

reargument.

4. In its February 25, 2026 this Court laid out the reasons for the

legal effect of the Court of Chancery decision. That decision involved

different legal entities and different developments. The Court did not

1 2025 WL 3515356 (Del.Ch. 2025).

2 misapprehend the facts or the law.

5. For the first time Defendant attacks the validity of the

confessed judgment on the merits. This request is untimely and on that basis

alone it is denied. Even if timely Defendant’s arguments does not prevail.

Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant actually signed a personal

guarantee copies of which were attached as exhibits to both complaints. The

fact that a personal guarantee was required and given to obtain the loan is

sufficient consideration for each confessed judgment. As to this issue the

Court has not misapprehended the facts or the law.

For the foregoing reasons Defendant Zachary Pearce’s Motion for

Reconsideration be and hereby is DENIED this 6th day of March, 2026.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr. Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge

cc: File&ServeXpress