Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
EFiled: Apr 13 2010 4:21PM EDT Transaction ID 30556272 Case No. 4281-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 April 13, 2010 Via LexisNexis File & Serve and First Class Mail Mr. Michael A. Duffy 3010 Kitts Hummock Road Dover, DE 19901 Re: Via LexisNexis File & Serve William W. Pepper Sr., Esquire Schmittinger and Rodriguez, P.A. 414 South State Street P.O. Box 497 Dover, DE 19903-0497 Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court C.A. No. 4281-VCN Date Submitted: March 8, 2010 Dear Mr. Duffy and Mr. Pepper: Mr. Duffy s filings on or about February 23, 2010, have caused me to revisit the status of this matter.1 Mr. Duffy brought this action in early 2009 in an effort to restrain Kent County from demolishing certain structures on his property in Kitts Hummock, 1 Various documents were filed at that time, bearing captions such as Motion for Temporary Injunction, First Motion on Relief of Equity in Destruction of Private Property and Absence of Due Process in Permitting, and Motion to Adjoin Exhibits J-M to Amicus Curiae Brief. Since then, other documents, entitled Facts of the Matter and Questions of Jurisdiction, also have been filed. Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court C.A. No. 4281-VCN April 13, 2010 Page 2 Kent County, Delaware. Mr. Duffy was unsuccessful in obtaining injunctive relief and the demolition process is now complete. Although the relief which Mr. Duffy now seeks is not altogether clear, one conclusion can be safely drawn: he no longer has a claim for equitable relief. The structures have been demolished, and it is beyond the power of an equity court to prevent that which has already occurred.2 In short, those equitable claims are moot. At most, Mr. Duffy may and the Court expresses no opinion as to this possibility have a claim for damages.3 Because nothing remains but a claim that can be remedied in a court of law, there is no reason for this Court to retain subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent that it could in the abstract continue with the case, it declines to exercise its discretion in favor of retaining jurisdiction. One of Mr. Duffy s most recent filings appears to focus on obtaining discovery which he believes was not properly provided to him earlier in these 2 Mr. Duffy is concerned about the condition of his now-vacant lands and the potential for erosion. Because they are his lands, the primary responsibility for them rests with him. 3 Presumably any such claim would seek to encompass not only the loss of the structure but also any corollary damages to the land, such as might result from erosion attributable to Kent County s actions. Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court C.A. No. 4281-VCN April 13, 2010 Page 3 proceedings. Those claims are either moot or are best handled by the court that will be addressing any potential claim for damages that he may have. Furthermore, to the extent that Mr. Duffy seeks judicial protection of any grandfathered footprint for land use regulatory purposes, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Kent County has denied or otherwise rejected any such claim. Thus, it does not appear that any such claim is ripe and ready for judicial action. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, those claims which are either moot or not ripe are dismissed, but, otherwise, the balance of the above-entitled action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Duffy may seek to transfer his pending legal claims to the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, all in accordance with 10 Del. C. ยง 1902. IT IS SO ORDERED. 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.
