Wilson v. Wilson.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY JAMES A. WILSON, Plaintiff, v. ANGELA C. WILSON, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : 04C-03-031 WLW Submitted: May 19, 2006 Decided: July 7, 2006 ORDER Upon Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment. Denied. Upon Plaintiff s Cro ss Motion and Amended C ross Motion for Summary Judgment. Denied. James A. Wilso n, pro se Glynis A. Gibso n, Esquire of Gibson & Nowak, Dover, Delaware; attorneys for the Defendant. WITHA M, R.J. James A. Wilson v. Angela C. Wilson C.A. No. 04C-03-031 WLW July 7, 2006 Defendant, Angela Wilson, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that she never had Power of Attorney ove r the property 1 at dispute in this case. Additionally, Plaintiff and Defend ant s mother, Bessie Wilson-Smith, submitted an affidavit claiming that she has a valid Power of Attorney and received payment for Plaintiff s lost property in the amount of $4,070.00.2 Plaintiff, James Wilson, Defendant s brother, asserts that Defendant was in possession of his property, that she made mortgage payments and that she alleged in a complaint in another civil case that she made payments pursuant to a security agreement and a Power of Attorney.3 He also contends that she was compen sated for her lost prop erty, as well as his lo st property, in the amount of $62,500.00 from Greenpoint Mortgage, which held the mortgage for his mobile home at Barker s Landing. Defendant did not explain what the $62,500.00 was payment for in her response. However, a copy of the General Release of All Claims signed by De fendant reveals th at the release w as in connection to any claims arising from or pertaining to a repossession of a manufactured home located at 383 Jury Drive, Magnolia, D elaware, that o ccurred on or a bout January 3 0, 2001. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a cross motion for summary judgment arguing that Defendant signed a lease agreement concerning P laintiff s property at 383 Jury Drive and alleges that Defendant admits that she had a Pow er of Attorney to a llow her to stay 1 The property consisted of two mobile homes, a BMW and other personal items. 2 The $4,070.00 was only for personal property, not the mobile home, according to the Proof of Loss. 3 Plaintiff has not produced a copy of a Power of Attorney appointing Defendant. 2 James A. Wilson v. Angela C. Wilson C.A. No. 04C-03-031 WLW July 7, 2006 there so as not to lose his property at that location. Plaintiff further contends that the $62,500.00 received from Greenpoint Mortgage should have included his property and that 95% of the property at that lo cation was his. 4 For the reasons set forth below, Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment as well as Plaintiff s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Amended Cross Motion for Summary Judgment are denied. Standard of Review Superior Court Civil Rule 56(c) provides that judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 5 On a motion for summary judgment the Court examines the record to determine whether any material issues of fact exist. Summary judgment will only be granted when, after viewing the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.6 Summary judgment will not be granted when a more thorough inquiry into the facts is desirable to clarify the application of the law to the 4 This is alleged along with additional prayers for relief in the Amended Cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff on June 29, 2006. 5 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56. 6 Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc. v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc., 312 A.2d 322, 325 (Del. Super. Ct. 1973); see also McCall v. Villa Pizza, Inc., 636 A.2d 912 (Del. 1994). 3 James A. Wilson v. Angela C. Wilson C.A. No. 04C-03-031 WLW July 7, 2006 circumstances.7 Discussion Considering the facts in a light mo st favorable to Plaintiff, there are clearly still issues of material fact, which require a more thorough inquiry. Specifically, whether the $62,500.00 payment from Greenpoint Mortgage was, at least in part, payment for the mobile home, which Plaintiff owned . And, conside ring the facts in a ligh t most favorable to the Defendant on the Cross and Amended Cross Motions for Summa ry Judgment, there are clear issues of material fact that can only be resolved by a jury.8 Based on the foregoing, Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment alon g with Plaintiff s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Amended Cross Motion for Summary Judgment are denied. A Scheduling Order will be issued. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ William L. W itham, Jr. R.J. WLW/dmh oc: Prothonotary xc: Order Distribution 7 Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962). 8 Defendant filed a Motion for More Definite Statement which was presumably filed in response to Plaintiff s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant s motion is deemed moot. The Response to Amended Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is acknowledged, but it does not advance this matter. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
