Gerald N. and Myrna M. Smernoff Rev. Trusts v. The King's Grant Condominium Assn. ( 2022 )

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
SAM GLASSCOCK III
VICE CHANCELLOR
STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
October 19, 2022
John A. Sergovic, Jr., Esquire Mary R. Schrider-Fox, Esquire
Sergovic Carmean Weidman McCartney & Steen, Waehler & Schrider-Fox, LLC
Owens, P.A. P.O. Box 1398
P.O. Box 751 92 Atlantic Avenue, Unit B
25 Chestnut Street Ocean View, DE 19970
Georgetown, DE 19947
Re: Gerald N. and Myrna M. Smernoff Rev. Trusts v. The King's
Grant Condominium Assn., C.A. No. 2020-0798-PWG
Dear Counsel:
I am in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reargument docketed on October
14, 2022, purportedly seeking reargument of my Letter Opinion of October 10,
2022 (the “Decision”). “A motion for reargument under Rule 59(f) will be denied
unless the Court has overlooked a decision or principle of law that would have
controlling effect or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts so the outcome
of the decision would be affected.”1 Plaintiffs, however, cite neither a mistake of
law nor a misapprehension of fact in the Decision.
To the extent I follow their rationale, the Plaintiffs ask me to assume
jurisdiction over the case, because the inherent standard of review for Masters’
1
Brown v. Wiltbank, 2012 WL 5503832, at *1 (Del. Ch. Nov. 14, 2012) (internal quotations
omitted).
cases, and the particular circumstances here, make the effort and amount of time
required to achieve finality inappropriate to the issue posed: a right to equitable
relief to have the Defendant repair or replace a leaking window in Plaintiffs’
condominium. In fact, I noted the unfortunate longevity of this matter in the
Decision. I also note, however, that the underlying “water test” indicating that the
window should be recaulked was performed in 2014, and that suit was thereafter
filed, a brisk six years later. I think it follows that expedition was not, at least
initially, the Plaintiffs’ foremost concern.
In any event, the Plaintiffs seek via “reargument” to persuade me to reassign
the case to myself, in order to expedite final relief. This request, whatever its
merits, is doubly misplaced. It does not state a ground for reargument of the
Decision itself (which affirmed the Master’s denial of the Plaintiffs motion for
summary judgment, the subject of the Plaintiffs’ exceptions to the Master’s Final
Report of June 15, 2022); neither does it make a request within my power to grant.
Assignment of cases is a matter for the Chancellor. Any request for reassignment
should be made to the Master to whom the case is assigned, for her
recommendation, or directly to the Chancellor; Plaintiff’s request to me is in an
arena to which my writ does not run.
2
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s 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
cc: All counsel of record via File & Serve Xpress
3