Vincent v. Baize

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
EFiled: Mar 30 2010 11:05AM EDT Transaction ID 30307720 Case No. 3432-VCN COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOHN W. NOBLE VICE CHANCELLOR 417 SOUTH STATE STREET DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397 FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179 March 30, 2010 Beth B. Miller, Esquire Morris James LLP 29 North State Street, Suite 100 Dover, DE 19901 Re: Patricia M. O Neill, Esquire Law Office of Patricia M. O Neill 215 East Market Street Georgetown, DE 19947 Vincent v. Baize C.A. No. 3432-VCN Date Submitted: March 26, 2010 Dear Counsel: I have reviewed the briefing on Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and have concluded that oral argument is not necessary. With the exception of a few questions regarding time-bar defenses, which I will address shortly, I am satisfied that there are material disputes of fact and, accordingly, that summary judgment is an inappropriate vehicle for resolution of the bulk of this action. Accordingly, Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied through an order which I will separately enter. Beth B. Miller, Esquire Patricia M. O Neill, Esquire March 30, 2010 Page 2 As for the time-bar defenses, I ask Ms. O Neill to explain why the important date is when the Plaintiff turned eighteen. The issue, and perhaps I am mistaken, involves the trust and the trust did not terminate until the Plaintiff turned twenty-one, which was well within three years of her filing this action. If, on the other hand, any of the Plaintiff s claims arose under the guardianship (and not the trust), I ask Ms. Miller to explain why guardianship-based claims are not time-barred. I also ask Ms. O Neill whether her client in fact opposes summary judgment disposition by time-bar of the claims against Mr. Vincent. If the Defendants continue to insist upon pursuing any claims against Mr. Vincent, a more specific argument refuting the time-bar defense should be submitted. Very truly yours, /s/ John W. Noble JWN/cap cc: Register in Chancery-K

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.