CIT Technologies Financing Services v. Owen Printing Dover, Inc., et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Delaware Kent County Courthouse 38 The Green Dover, Delaware 19901 Telephone (302) 739-5332 William L. Witham, Jr. Resident Judge June 13, 2008 John R. We aver, Jr., Esquire Farr Burke Gambacorta & Wright, P.C. P.O. Box 510 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Thomas I. Ba rros, Esquire Hudson Jones Jaywork & Fisher, LLC 225 South State Street Dover, Delaware 19901 Re: CIT Te chnolog ies Finan cing v. Ow en Printin g Dove r, Inc., et al. C.A. No. 06C-08-047 WLW Letter Decision on Defendants Motion for Reargument Dear C ounsel: On April 30, 2008, this Court issued its decision in the above matter. On May 2, 2008, Defendant Owen Printing Dover, Inc. d/b/a/ Sir Speedy, also known as Sir Speedy Printing Center and David Owen (collectively, Defendants ) filed a Motion for Rearg umen t, arguin g that the Court s fifth f inding and its c onclus ion are in consiste nt. The fifth finding by the Court is that the Court will grant Plaintiff costs and attorneys fees only for the Writ of Replevin. The Court then concluded that attorneys fees accrued after the Reple vin Or der are a warde d at the ra te of 5% . Plaintiff, CIT Technologies Financing1 ( CIT ), argues that these are not inconsistent since the Court s fifth Finding of Fact goes on to discuss Title 10, Section 3912 of the Delaware Code, which allows the Court to award reasonable counsel fees of 1 Successor-in-Interest to Citicorp Vendor Finance, Inc. CIT Technology Financing v. Owen Printing Dover, Inc. June 13, 2008 Page 2 up to 20 percent of the amount due, but is subject to the discretion of the Court, which conclu ded tha t the aw ard wil l be at the rate of 5 percen t. I do not find that the April 30, 2008 Order is inconsistent nor contradictory to any Finding of Fact by this Court. With respect to attorneys fees, the Court awards attorneys fees f or the R eplevin Order in the pr evious ly agreed to amo unt of $ 1,275.0 0. Given that the Court finds CIT failed to mitigate its damages, the Court will not grant the statutory ceiling of 20 percent as provided by Section 3912. Instead, it invokes the discretionary provision of Section 3912, and awards attorneys fees at the rate of 5 percen t to accru e after th e date o f the R eplevin Order . IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ William L. Witham , Jr. WLW/dmh oc: Prothonotary xc: John R. We aver, Jr., Esquire Thomas I. Ba rrows, Esquire
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.
