Title: Wright v. Platinum Financial Services
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 139, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 28, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT T. WRIGHT, 
 
Defendant/Appellant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
PLATINUM FINANCIAL 
SERVICES, et al.,  
 
Plaintiffs/Appellees Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 139, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 06A-05-002 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 10, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 28, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of June 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellees’ motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Robert T. Wright, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s February 16, 2007 order affirming the Court of Common Pleas’ 
April 24, 2006 order dismissing his counterclaim and denying his motions to 
dismiss, to seal the court record, for entry of default judgment and for damages.  
The plaintiffs-appellees, Platinum Financial Services (“Platinum”), Arrow 
Financial Services, LLC, Providian Bank, Neal J. Levitsky, Esquire, Wolpoff & 
 
2
Abramson, LLP, Seth Neiderman, Esquire, and Fox Rothschild, LLP (collectively, 
the “Appellees”), have moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Wright’s opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In February 2003, Platinum sued Wright in the Court of Common 
Pleas for $4,295.88, plus interest and attorney’s fees it claimed were due and 
owing in connection with goods and/or services it allegedly had provided to 
Wright.  An initial attempt at service on Wright was unsuccessful and Platinum 
moved for an enlargement of time for the issuance of an alias summons.  The 
return of service affidavit reflects that Wright was served with the complaint on 
November 10, 2003.  When Wright failed to appear and defend, the Court of 
Common Pleas entered judgment in favor of Platinum in the amount of $6,705.50.  
At Platinum’s request, a wage attachment was issued.   
 
(3) 
Wright filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and quash the wage 
attachment, claiming that he was never properly served and that the statute of 
limitations on Platinum’s claims had run.  Wright also filed a “counterclaim” 
against the Appellees in the amount of $50,000, alleging gross negligence in 
connection with their attempts to serve him and fraud in connection with $486.00 
allegedly received from his employer.   
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
 
(4) 
The Court of Common Pleas vacated the default judgment on 
December 23, 2005, and an evidentiary hearing was scheduled on the issue of 
service.  In lieu of a hearing, the Court of Common Pleas ordered Platinum to re-
serve Wright.  On January 25, 2006, Platinum’s motion for an enlargement of time 
in which to file an alias summons was granted.  The record reflects that Wright 
was personally served on February 19, 2006.  On March 9, 2006, Wright filed his 
answer to the complaint in the form of a motion to dismiss, a motion to seal the 
file, a motion for default judgment, and a motion for damages in the amount of 
$50,000 based upon the Appellees’ alleged gross negligence and fraud.   
 
(5) 
At oral argument on April 21, 2006, Platinum voluntarily dismissed 
its complaint with prejudice. The Court of Common Pleas took Wright’s 
submissions under advisement and, by order dated April 24, 2006, dismissed his 
“counterclaim” and denied his motions as meritless.  The Court of Common Pleas 
found, among other things, that all monies collected to satisfy the judgment against 
Wright had been returned to him and that Wright had never received permission to 
assert a counterclaim against the Appellees pursuant to Court of Common Pleas 
Civil Rule 13(e).  Wright then filed a timely appeal in the Superior Court.   
 
(6) 
In Wright’s appeal to the Superior Court, he alleged that Platinum 
failed to properly serve him and that the Appellees submitted fraudulent documents 
to the Court of Common Pleas, failed to answer his counterclaim, and improperly 
 
4
interfered with court procedures.  In its February 16, 2007 order, the Superior 
Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, ruling that the Court of 
Common Pleas had committed no error or abuse of discretion.     
 
(7) 
In an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas to the Superior Court, 
the standard of review is whether there is legal error and whether the factual 
findings made by the trial judge are sufficiently supported by the record and are the 
product of an orderly and logical deductive process.2  Findings of the trial court 
that are supported by the record must be accepted by the reviewing court even if, 
acting independently, it would have reached a contrary conclusion.3  This Court 
applies the same standard of review to the Superior Court’s decision.4 
 
(8) 
We conclude, as did the Superior Court, that the factual findings of 
the Court of Common Pleas are supported by the record and are the product of an 
orderly and logical reasoning process.  It is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are 
controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, there was no abuse of discretion. 
                                                 
2 Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671, 673 (Del. 1972). 
3 Id. 
4 Baker v. Connell, 488 A.2d 1303, 1309 (Del. 1985). 
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the Appellees’ motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice