Woogen v. Hamilton.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD F. STOKES JUDGE P.O. BOX 746 COURTHOU SE GEORGETO WN, DE 19947 By facs imile and regular m ail David C. H utt, Esquire Wilson, Halbrook & Bayard, P.A. P.O. Box 690 Georgetown, DE 19947 Roy S. Shiels, Esquire Brown, Shiels, Beauregard & Chasanov 108 East Water Street P.O. Drawe r F Dover, DE 19903 Date Submitted: Date Decided: Re: September 11, 2003 October 10, 2003 Scott Woogen v. Lori Hamilton C.A. No. 03C-04-008-RFS Dear C ounsel: On September 3, 2003, the Court found that plaintiff was entitled to judgme nt in this ejectment suit. Plaintiff has exclusive ownership to the property by deed but remains out of possession. Because defe ndant s pleadings asserted an equitable claim of ownership, execution on the judgment was stayed pending transfer of this subject matter to the Court of Cha ncer y. There after, plaintiff sought re argumen t or clarification of the dec ision. This subject was discussed informally with counsel last week and on the record this morning. As indicated, if the equitable claims have merit, defendant may well have a right of possession as a partial owner (through specific performance of an alleged contract of sale between the parties). Defendant may also then be able to partition the property. These are equitable rem edies beyond the jurisdiction of the Su perior Co urt. When specifically enforcing a conditional sales contract, the Court of Chancery has enjoined a litigant from prosecuting a writ of possession and an ejec tment a ction, see Clements v. Castle Mortgage Service Company, 382 A.2d 1367 (Del.Ch. 1977). Here, the defendant has the burden to establish her equitable claims. If the case is transferred, she can seek an in junc tion to pe rmit h er co ntinued occu patio n of the p rope rty. The parties discus sed the setting of a bond in the Superior Court to stay the writ of possession. Its pu rpos e wo uld b e to in dem nify p laint iff f rom any loss until final determination of the various claims. Certainly, a bond would be the subject of an injunction action. The Chancellor can better weigh the competing equities, whether irreparable harm exists, and the likelihood of succes s presented by the equitab le claims. Th e bond sh ould follow her burden. In conclusion, the motion for reargument is denied as the Court did not overlook applicable principles of law. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the request for clarification is granted. Execution of the ejectment action shall proceed forthwith through the immediate issuance of a writ of possession. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, Richard F. Stokes cc: Prothonotary 2
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.
