Court Opinion

ID: 9893414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 21:04:12.005068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:22.390948
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    IMO THE ESTATE OF                       )
    LAMONT WOODS                            )     C.A. No. 2022-0010-SEM

                                        ORDER

          WHEREAS, on January 4, 2022, Crystal Vaughn (the “Petitioner”) filed a

petition for the removal of Latisha Copes (the “Respondent,” together, the “Parties”)

as co-personal representative of the estate of Lamont Woods (the “Estate”);1 Lamont

Woods (the “Decedent”) passed on April 23, 2021, without a will; 2 on June 28, 2021,

the Register of Wills appointed the Parties (who are the Decedent’s daughters) as

co-personal representatives; 3

          WHEREAS, through this action, the Petitioner avers that the Respondent (1)

sold and misappropriated an estate asset (an RV); and (2) distributed certain

proceeds from that sale, while retaining some proceeds for herself, without

authority; 4 the Petitioner contends the Respondent acted without permission, notice,

or consent from the Estate, the Petitioner, or the Register of Wills and, as such,

1
    Docket Item (“D.I.”) 1.
2
    D.I. 1 ¶¶ 6–7.
3
 In re the Est. of Lamont Woods, 177869 JC, D.I. 1. “Because the Register of Wills is a
Clerk of the Court of Chancery, filings with the Register of Wills are subject to judicial
notice.” Arot v. Lardani, 2018 WL 5430297, at *1 n.6 (Del. Ch. Oct. 29, 2018) (citing 12
Del. C. § 2501; Del. R. Evid. 202(d)(1)(C)).
4
    D.I. 1 ¶ 1.

                                            1
breached her fiduciary duties to the Estate and its beneficiaries; 5 the Petitioner seeks

(1) the removal of the Respondent as co-personal representative; (2) a constructive

trust against all of the Estate’s assets held by the Respondent; (3) damages for

conversion of the Estate’s assets; and (4) a full, accurate, and complete accounting

of the Respondent’s use of the Decedent’s property; 6

          WHEREAS, the Respondent answered the petition on February 9, 2022;7

through her answer, the Respondent admits that she sold the contested property (an

RV, which she concedes was titled in the Decedent’s name at the time of his

passing), but denies that the sale was improper or supports a claim that she breached

her fiduciary duties to the Estate; 8

          WHEREAS, on March 29, 2023, the Respondent filed a purported

counterclaim against the Petitioner (the “Counterclaim”); 9 therein, the Respondent

requested reimbursement for: (1) attorneys’ fees; (2) co-executor service fees; (3)

5
    D.I. 1.
6
    Id.
7
  D.I. 8. The Respondent’s answer was filed after the Petitioner moved for judgment by
default. D.I. 6. That motion was scheduled to be heard, but the hearing was continued at
the Parties’ request while they attempted to settle their dispute. D.I. 10–13. The Parties
were unable to reach full resolution and, at a November 11, 2022 scheduling conference, I
permitted the Respondent’s counsel to withdraw, and I set forth deadlines for next steps.
D.I. 23. Thereafter, I resolved discovery disputes. See D.I. 31. See also D.I. 60 (declining
to shift fees in connection with the discovery dispute).
8
    D.I. 8 ¶¶ 10–20.
9
    D.I. 36–38.

                                             2
money she gave to certain individuals; (4) storage, towing, and mechanic service

fees; (5) overpayment of supplemental security income benefits; (6) court fees; (7)

pain and suffering; and (8) her share of the Estate; 10

           WHEREAS, on March 8, 2023, the Petitioner filed a motion for partial

summary judgment (the “Motion for Summary Judgment”), through which the

Petitioner seeks removal of the Respondent as co-personal representative of the

Estate; 11 on April 26, 2023, the Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the Counterclaim

or for a motion for a more definite statement (the “Motion to Dismiss,” with the

Motion for Summary Judgment, the “Motions”); 12

           WHEREAS, the Motions sat dormant for some time; on May 18, 2023, I wrote

to the parties and set deadlines for responses and replies on the Motions: May 31,

2023 for any response by the Respondent and any reply(ies) by the Petitioner were

due within 14 days of any response(s); 13 I further scheduled the Motions to be heard

on June 21, 2023; 14

10
     D.I. 36.
11
     D.I. 32.
12
     D.I. 40.
13
     D.I. 42.
14
     Id.

                                           3
         WHEREAS, argument on the Motions was continued;15 the Motions were

ultimately heard on August 1, 2023, at which time I gave the Respondent two weeks

(until August 15, 2023) to file a motion to amend her counterclaim, and I took the

Motion for Summary Judgment under advisement; 16

         WHEREAS, to date, the Respondent has not filed a motion to amend her

counterclaim; rather, the Respondent, on August 18, 2023, filed a response to the

Motion to Dismiss; 17

         WHEREAS, “[t]he Court’s rules apply to all parties, whether or not

represented by counsel. Although the Court may be willing to overlook certain

technical aspects of its rules when dealing with self-represented litigants, such as the

format of briefs or how filings are presented, it cannot overlook a party’s failure to

comply with deadlines, whether those deadlines are contained in the rules or

explicitly ordered by the Court. To do otherwise would invite chaos, and would

significantly impair the efficient administration of cases[;]”18

         WHEREAS, under Court of Chancery Rule 56, summary judgment is

appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the

15
     D.I. 45.
16
     See D.I. 51, 60.
17
     D.I. 54.
18
     Aequitas Sols., Inc. v. Anderson, 2012 WL 5304155, at *7 (Del. Ch. Oct. 25, 2012).

                                              4
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law[;]”19 “[i]n deciding a

motion for summary judgment, the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable

to the nonmoving party and the moving party has the burden of demonstrating that

there is no material question of fact[;]” 20 “[a]lthough summary judgment is

encouraged when possible, there is no absolute right to summary judgment[;]”21

         WHEREAS, the breach of fiduciary duty claim underlying the Petitioner’s

request to remove the Respondent as co-personal representative imposes upon the

Petitioner the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, “(i) that a

fiduciary duty exists; and (ii) that a fiduciary breached that duty[;]” 22

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this 26th day of October, 2023, as follows:

         1.     The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Motion to Dismiss has been

pending since March 8, 2023. Through my May 18, 2023 letter, I directed the

Respondent to respond by May 31, 2023. She failed to do so. At the August 1, 2023

hearing, I provided the Respondent one final chance to save the Counterclaim—by

filing a motion to amend by August 15, 2023. The Respondent did not file

exceptions to my order, nor did she file the motion to amend as directed. Rather she

19
     Ct. Ch. R. 56(c).
20
  Senior Tour Players 207 Mgmt. Co. LLC v. Golftown 207 Hldg. Co., LLC, 853 A.2d 124,
126 (Del. Ch. 2004).
21
     AeroGlobal Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. Cirrus Indus., Inc., 871 A.2d 428, 443 (Del. 2005).
22
     Heller v. Kiernan, 2002 WL 385545, at *3 (Del. Ch.), aff’d, 806 A.2d 164 (Del. 2002).

                                              5
filed a belated written response to the Motion to Dismiss. That response is

STRICKEN, and the Counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice.

      2.    The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. There remains a

genuine dispute as to ownership of the RV, which is material to whether the

Respondent’s sale and distribution/retention of the sale proceeds was in breach of

the fiduciary duties she owes to the Estate and rises to the level supporting her

removal as co-personal representative.

      3.    The Parties shall contact my chambers for a trial date and once

confirmed, submit a proposed schedule for my consideration.

      4.    This is a final report under Court of Chancery Rule 143 and exceptions

under Court of Chancery Rule 144 are stayed until a final order is issued on the

merits of the remaining claims.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                  /s/ Selena E. Molina
                                                  Magistrate Selena E. Molina

                                         6