Title: Spanagel v. Williams

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROSE 
MARIE 
SPANAGEL,
individually 
and 
as 
personal
representative of the estate of Robert J.
Spanagel,
Defendants Below,
Appellants,
v.
JOHN 
H. 
WILLIAMS, 
JR.,
administrator with the will annexed of
the estate of Aline G. Brugmann,
deceased,
Plaintiff Below,
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 523, 2000
§
§
§  Court BelowCourt of Chancery
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 14488-NC
§
§
§
§
§
§
   Submitted:  October 10, 2001
      Decided:  November 7, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7th day of November 2001, it appears to the Court that:
1)
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered by the Court of
Chancery.  These proceedings were filed on August 18, 1995 by Supportive Care
Services, Inc., as guardian of the property of Aline G. Brugmann (“Mrs.
Brugmann”).  Mrs. Brugmann died on March 12, 1996.  Mrs. Brugmann’s death
resulted in the substitution of John H. Williams, Jr., the administrator of Mrs.
Brugmann’s estate, as the party plaintiff (“plaintiff”).
2
2)
The complaint asked for an accounting from Robert J. and Rose Marie
Spanagel (“defendants”) and for the imposition of a constructive trust against
certain real property that Mrs. Brugmann had transferred to the defendants.
3)
A default judgment was entered against the defendants by the Court of
Chancery on March 4, 1996.  The defendants moved to set aside the default
judgment on May 1, 1996.  That motion was denied by an Order dated May 14,
1996.
4)
The Court of Chancery held an inquisition hearing on March 27, 1999
to determine the damages and other relief due to the plaintiff.  The defendants
appeared at the March hearing.  The Court of Chancery heard testimony from the
plaintiff.  It then continued the hearing to a later date to enable the parties to
develop a pretrial order.
5)
The Court of Chancery also asked the parties to submit letter
memoranda to address the effect of the default judgment that had been entered
against the defendants with regard to the issues pending in the inquisition.  The
plaintiff submitted a memorandum with the Court of Chancery.  The defendants
did not submit their own memorandum.
6)
On April 9, 1999, the Court of Chancery issued an Order granting the
specific equitable relief prayed for in the complaint:  a constructive trust against
the real property known as 3403 South Rockfield Drive, Wilmington, Delaware.
3
In the April 9, 1999 Order, the Court of Chancery ordered the defendants to
execute a corrective deed transferring the property to the plaintiff.
7)
The defendants did not comply with the Court of Chancery’s April 9,
1999 Order.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for performance by substitute.  The
defendants did not oppose the motion.  The motion was granted by the Court of
Chancery on April 27, 1999.
8)
On September 13, 1999, the defendants filed another motion to vacate
the default judgment.  On September 21, 1999, the Court of Chancery again denied
the motion.
9)
The inquisition hearing reconvened on December 20, 1999.  The
defendants were afforded the opportunity to present their case.  The Court of
Chancery ordered post-trial briefing and further oral argument at the conclusion of
the briefing.
10)
The Court of Chancery issued its Memorandum Opinion on
September 14, 2000.  In its Opinion, the Court of Chancery granted most of the
substantive relief sought by the plaintiff.  A form of Order implementing the
Memorandum Opinion was signed and entered.  The defendants filed this appeal.
11)
In this appeal, the appellants challenge the Court of Chancery’s
decision not to set aside the default judgment that was entered in 1996.  We have
concluded that the motion to set aside the default judgment was properly denied by
4
the Court of Chancery, for the reasons stated in its September 21, 1999 Letter
Opinion.  We have also concluded that the final judgment entered by the Court of
Chancery should be affirmed for the reasons stated in its September 14, 2000
Memorandum Opinion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments of the
Court of Chancery are affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice