Title: Matter of Holmes & Wooley

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE REAL §
ESTATE OF VERA M. HOLMES §  No. 432, 2001
and DAVID F. WOOLEY
§
§
DAVID F. WOOLEY,
§
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery
Respondent Below,
§  of the State of Delaware,
Appellant,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.M. No. 9562
v.
§
§
VERA M. HOLMES,
§
§
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellee.
§
  Submitted:  November 5, 2001
     Decided:  November 15, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
This 15th day of November 2001, the Court has before it the
appellee's Motion to Affirm under Supreme Court Rule 25(a).  It is
manifest on the face of appellant's opening brief that the appeal is without
merit under the criteria set forth in Rule 25(a) because:  to the extent the
issues raised on appeal are factual, the record evidence supports the trial
judge’s factual findings; to the extent the errors alleged on appeal are
attributed to an abuse of discretion, the record does not support those
assertions; and to the extent that the issues raised on appeal are legal, they
are controlled by settled Delaware law, which was properly applied.
Therefore, this Court has concluded that the judgments of the Court of
Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned
by the Court of Chancery in its well-reasoned decision dated November
21, 20001.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
appellee’s Motion to Affirm be granted.  The judgment of the Court of
Chancery is affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
No. 432, 2001
Vera M. Holmes
305 Varsity Lane
Bear, DE  19702
Joel Friedlander, Esquire
Bouchard, Margules & Friedlander
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1102
Wilmington, DE   19808
Honorable Jack B. Jacobs
Court of Chancery
1020 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE   19801