Thorpe v. Ingram.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY BETTY F. THORPE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM P. INGRAM, and MARGARET ANNE INGRAM, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : C.A. No: 97C-02-016 (RBY) Submitted: November 6, 2013 Decided: January 10, 2014 Upon Consideration of Defendants Motion for Reargument DENIED ORDER Noel E. Primos, Esquire, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware for Plaintiff. William P. Ingram, and Margaret Anne Ingram, Pro se. Young, J. Thorpe v. Ingram C.A. No.: 97C-02-016 (RBY) January 10, 2014 SUMMARY For the reasons respectively set forth below, Defendants Motion for Reargument is DENIED. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts regarding this matter are contained in the Court s Order of October 22, 2013, and are incorporated herein. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to Civil Rule 59(e), a Motion for Reargument shall be filed within 5 days after service of the decision on which it is based; in which event, to be successful, the moving party must show that the Court has overlooked or misapplied a precedent or legal principles, or misapprehended the facts affecting the outcome. DISCUSSION In this Motion, Defendants have attempted to assert, for the first time, that a party is necessary to this action. Plaintiff s position is neither timely raised nor accurate. Bell vs. Fisher, 2012 Del. Super. LEXIS 241. Plaintiff s arguments concerning the merits of the case present nothing which was factual matter, was misapprehended or misapplied. Hence, Defendants various arguments on these asserted bases are without merit. Friends of Paladin vs. New Castle County Bd. Of Adjustment, 2006 Del. Super. LEXIS 434. Finally, given the filing date of the Court s opinion on October 22, 2013, Defendants had, pursuant to Civil Rule 59(e), the time frame of 10-23, 10-24, 1025, 10-28, and 10-29 within which to file any Motion for Reargument. Defendants 2 Thorpe v. Ingram C.A. No.: 97C-02-016 (RBY) January 10, 2014 failed to comply with that requirement. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Motion for Reargument is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Robert B. Young J. RBY/lmc oc: Prothonotary cc: Mr. Primos, Esq. Mr. & Mrs. Ingram Opinion Distribution File 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.
