Peter Kostyshyn v. Scott T. Phillips
This text of Peter Kostyshyn v. Scott T. Phillips (Peter Kostyshyn v. Scott T. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
Date Submitted: August 3, 2023 Date Decided: August 24, 2023
Peter Kostyshyn 1223 Rosedale Avenue Wilmington, Delaware 19809
Patricia Kostyshyn 1127 Brandywine Boulevard Wilmington, Delaware 19809
Re: Kostyshyn, et al. v. Phillips, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0725-SG
Dear Mr. and Ms. Kostyshyn:
This letter order addresses your motion of August 3, 2023, which I treat as a
Motion for Reargument of my July 26, 2023 denial of exceptions to the
Magistrate’s recommendation this action be dismissed. Your motion is denied.
Your original complaint sought to invoke equity to prevent the filing of a
sheriff’s deed following a monition sale in Superior Court. Under Chancery Court
Rule 59(f), relief under a motion for reargument is available only where the Court
“overlooked an applicable legal precedent or misapprehended the law or the facts
in such a way as to affect the outcome of the case . . . .”1 You have failed to
identify either. Instead, you seek relief related to a request, made in the Motion for
1 Chrin v. Ibrix, Inc., 2012 WL 6737780, at *2 (Del. 2012). Reargument itself, to reopen “the Estates, of Kataryna[.]”2 This request appears
unrelated to the complaint in this case. In any event, a Motion for Reargument is
improper here. If you have grounds to reopen an estate, you may petition the
Register of Wills in the appropriate county in a separate action. Nothing in this
denial of your Motion for Reargument is with prejudice to any right you may have
to seek the reopening of the estate to which you refer. You may not so proceed
under this action, C.A. No. 2023-0725-SG, however.3
For the reasons above, the Motion for Reargument is DENIED. To the extent
the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock III Vice Chancellor
2 Mot. for Reagument at 1, Dkt. No. 15. I assume this refers to the Estate of Kataryna Kostyshyn. 3 See gen. Ct. Ch. Rs. 205, 207. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Peter Kostyshyn v. Scott T. Phillips, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-kostyshyn-v-scott-t-phillips-delch-2023.