Court Opinion

ID: 9686796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:06:47.632181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.216121
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                        OF THE
    SAM GLASSCOCK III             STATE OF DELAWARE               COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
     VICE CHANCELLOR                                                       34 THE CIRCLE
                                                                    GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

                                Date Submitted: August 3, 2023
                                Date Decided: August 24, 2023

    Peter Kostyshyn
    1223 Rosedale Avenue
    Wilmington, Delaware 19809

    Patricia Kostyshyn
    1127 Brandywine Boulevard
    Wilmington, Delaware 19809

                 Re:    Kostyshyn, et al. v. Phillips, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0725-SG

Dear Mr. and Ms. Kostyshyn:

         This letter order addresses your motion of August 3, 2023, which I treat as a

Motion for Reargument of my July 26, 2023 denial of exceptions to the

Magistrate’s recommendation this action be dismissed. Your motion is denied.

         Your original complaint sought to invoke equity to prevent the filing of a

sheriff’s deed following a monition sale in Superior Court. Under Chancery Court

Rule 59(f), relief under a motion for reargument is available only where the Court

“overlooked an applicable legal precedent or misapprehended the law or the facts

in such a way as to affect the outcome of the case . . . .”1 You have failed to

identify either. Instead, you seek relief related to a request, made in the Motion for

1
    Chrin v. Ibrix, Inc., 2012 WL 6737780, at *2 (Del. 2012).
Reargument itself, to reopen “the Estates, of Kataryna[.]”2 This request appears

unrelated to the complaint in this case. In any event, a Motion for Reargument is

improper here. If you have grounds to reopen an estate, you may petition the

Register of Wills in the appropriate county in a separate action. Nothing in this

denial of your Motion for Reargument is with prejudice to any right you may have

to seek the reopening of the estate to which you refer. You may not so proceed

under this action, C.A. No. 2023-0725-SG, however.3

       For the reasons above, the Motion for Reargument is DENIED. To the extent

the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                    Sincerely,

                                                    /s/ Sam Glasscock III
                                                    Vice Chancellor

2
  Mot. for Reagument at 1, Dkt. No. 15. I assume this refers to the Estate of Kataryna
Kostyshyn.
3
  See gen. Ct. Ch. Rs. 205, 207.
                                                2