Title: Mack v. Pennmark Auto Group
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 515, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 20, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RHONDA MACK, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 515, 2006 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
PENNMARK AUTO GROUP, LP, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 06C-04-211 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 24, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 20, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of November 2007, upon consideration of the briefs of 
the parties, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The pro se appellant, Rhonda Mack, entered into an agreement 
and sixty-month installment contract to purchase a 2005 Mercedes Benz 
(“the vehicle”) from the appellee, Pennmark Auto Group, LP (Pennmark).  
On August 22, 2006, the Superior Court determined that Mack was in 
default of the contract.  Mack’s appeal followed. 
 
(2) 
Mack and Pennmark entered into the agreement and contract on 
August 16, 2004.  Mack made a cash down payment of $3,500.00 on the 
vehicle.  When completing the contract documents, however, Pennmark 
 
2
mistakenly credited Mack with a cash down payment of $24,500.00.  With 
$24,500.00 deducted from the sale price of the vehicle, the contract reflected 
an unpaid balance of $20,294.66 and monthly payments of $366.45. 
 
(3) 
Pennmark discovered the error after Mack left the dealership 
with the vehicle.  Pennmark contacted Mack and asked that she return the 
vehicle or sign a corrected agreement.  Mack refused, and she began making 
monthly payments of $366.45 on the vehicle. 
 
(4) 
In October 2004, Pennmark brought an action for reformation.  
By order dated November 25, 2005, the Court of Chancery reformed the 
contract to reflect Mack’s cash down payment of $3,500.00.  With $3,500.00 
deducted from the sale price of the vehicle, the reformed contract reflected 
an unpaid balance of $41,294.66,1 and Mack’s monthly payments increased 
to $740.17.2 
 
(5) 
Mack did not appeal the Court of Chancery’s November 25, 
2005 decision reforming the contract.  Nonetheless, Mack continued to make 
monthly payments of only $366.45 on the vehicle. 
                                                 
1 See Pennmark Auto Group v. Mack, Del. Chan., C.A. No. 756-N, Noble, V.C. (Nov. 17, 
2005) (granting summary judgment as unopposed). 
2 Hr’g Tr. at 7-9 (Aug. 22, 2006), Pennmark v. Mack, Del. Super., C.A. No. 06-04-211, 
Cooch, J. (Aug. 22, 2006).  
 
3
 
(6) 
In April 2006, Pennmark filed a replevin action seeking return 
of the vehicle for Mack’s default of the reformed contract.  The Superior 
Court held a hearing on August 22, 2006. 
 
(7) 
Mack appeared and testified at the hearing.  At the conclusion 
of the hearing, the Superior Court entered judgment for Pennmark “for two 
independent reasons.”3  First, the Superior Court determined that Mack had 
waived her right to contest the action because she had failed to file a 
required “notice of intention to appear.”4  Second, the Superior Court 
determined on the merits that Mack was in default of the reformed contract.5  
This appeal followed. 
 
(8) 
The Court has carefully considered the parties’ briefs and the 
record and has concluded that the Superior Court’s judgment should be 
affirmed.  The transcript of the August 22, 2006 hearing belies Mack’s 
conclusory assertions that she did not understand the purpose of the hearing 
and was not in default of the reformed contract.  Having affirmed the 
judgment on the merits, we do not reach the alternative ground for affirming 
the Superior Court’s judgment. 
                                                 
3 Hr’g Tr. at 11 (Aug. 22, 2006). 
4 Id. at 12.  See Pennmark Auto Group v. Mack, Del. Super., C.A. No. 06C-04-211, 
Cooch, J. (May 31, 2006) (scheduling motion hearing and ordering that opposition must 
file Notice of Intention to Appear at least five days before hearing date). 
5Hr’g Tr. at 11-12 (Aug. 22, 2006).  See Pennmark Auto Group v. Mack, Del. Super., 
C.A. No. 06C-04-211, J. Docket No. 05J-11-734, Cooch, J. (Aug. 22, 2006) (awarding 
possession of  vehicle to Pennmark).   
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
             Justice