Peter Kostyshyn v. Scott T. Phillips ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                   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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA No. 2023-0725-SG

Judges: Glasscock, V.C.

Filed Date: 8/24/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/24/2023