Waters v. Laser Re-Nu, Inc. et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY NATHANIEL WATERS Plaintiff, v. LASER RE-NU, INC. JEANESE WARD G. ALEN WARD Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 1992-06-076 Submitted: December 2, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002 Nathaniel Waters 1655 Wheeling Street Building 811, Apt. 4 Aurora, CO 80010 Plaintiff pro se G. Alen Ward Jeanese Ward 505 Spike Drive Bear, DE 19701 Defendants pro se ORDER This is the Court s ruling on the evidentiary hearing held pursuant to the Honorable Jay Paul James May 3, 2002 Order. At the hearing, Plaintiff failed to appear after notice was sent.1 Defendants submitted the following uncontested evidence: 1 Nathaniel Waters was sent a summons via U.S. mail to his address of record: 1655 Wheeling Street, Building 811, Apt. 4 Aurora, CO 80010; received a facsimile on July 8, 2002 with a Barksdale, CA address with no formal address change filed with the civil clerk. 1. Gregory Alen Ward and Jeanese Ward, husband and wife, (collectively, Defendants ) had a business named Laser & Re-Nu in 1989. Nathaniel Waters, ( Plaintiff ) had invested $9,050.00 in the business. For some unspecified reason, Defendants business failed, and Plaintiff sued Defendants on the contract and supplemental promissory note. 2. Defendants failure to file responsive pleadings resulted in the entry of default judgment against them on July 27, 1992 in the principal amount of $9.925.00, plus $380.00 in attorney fees, $160.00 in costs and interest with penalties accruing from the judgment date. Since the judgment date, Defendants has paid Plaintiff $20,308.10 (as shown in Defendants Exhibit 1) through wage attachment proceedings. Under the belief that they have overpaid Plaintiff, Defendants requested and were granted a stay of wage attachment and the said evidentiary hearing to determine whether Plaintiff owed them any refund. 3. At the hearing, Defendants failed to present any evidence on the precise legal interest rate for July 27, 1992, which was the crucial information the Court needed to determine whether the Defendants had overpaid Plaintiff and the amount of refund due Defendants if any. Therefore, the Court finds by preponderance of evidence that Defendants did not carry its burden of proof as to the amount of refund to which they allegedly are entitled. 4. The Court hereby orders that as of this date, without prejudice, that Defendants have fully satisfied the judgment amount, and the writ of wage attachment fieri facias shall be quashed. Each party shall bear their own costs. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2002. _________________________ John K. Welch Associate Judge 3
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.
