Opinion
C.A. No. 09L-07-313 CLS.
May 24, 2011.
On this 24th day of May, 2011, it appears to the Court that:
1. Defendants Romie Bishop and Shirley Bishop filed a motion for reargument for the denial of the motion for summary judgment.
2. In their motion for reargument, the Defendants have failed to demonstrate how the Court has overlooked legal precedent in deciding issues of material fact exist, precluding summary judgment.
3. Generally, a motion for reargument will be granted when the Court has overlooked legal precedent that would change the outcome of the motion or misapplied the law to the facts. It will be denied when the movant rehashes arguments previously decided by the Court.
Monsanto v. Aetna, 1994 WL 46726, *2 (Del. Super. Ct.).
Ramon v. Ramon, 963 A.2d 128, 136 (Del. 2008).
4. In support of their motion for reargument, the Defendants cite Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp. , Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner and Peterson v. Proska , each stating the appropriate standard for summary judgment — whether genuine issues of material fact exist. The Defendants have failed to demonstrate how the Court did not apply that standard to their motion for summary judgment. The Court found an issue of material fact exists, whether a third party has made payment on the mortgage.
812 A.2d 894 (Del. 2002).
522 U.S. 136 (1997).
2010 WL 1267117 (Del. Super. Ct.).
The Defendants contend the true owner of the mortgage was the only issue of material fact. However, the Court found the only genuine issue of material fact to be whether payment had been made on the mortgage.
5. The Defendants' motion for reargument is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.