 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Karman v. Board of Adjustment of Sussex County4/26/2005
counsel in miscalculating time for response was excusable neglect justified vacating the default judgment); Williams v. DelCollo Electric, Inc., 576 A.2d 683, 686 (Del. Super. Ct. 1989) (finding neglect was not attributable to defendant, and was thus excusable, when it was solely the fault of the defendant's insurer). Neither of these theories has been alleged. The Court finds there is no justification for reopening this case under Rule 60(b)(1).
2. Rule 60(b)(6) - "Any Other Reason Justifying Relief"
Paragraph (b)(6) is an "independent ground for relief, with a different standard to be applied than under other subdivisions, in particular (1) and (3)." Jewell v. Division of Social Services, 401 A.2d 88 (Del. 1979). Delaware Courts have looked to the Federal Courts' interpretation of the Federal Rules to determine that the application of Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances such that injustice would result if relief from judgment is not granted. See Id. In Cristina Bd. of Educ. v. 322 Chapel St., 1995 WL 163509, at * 7 (Del. Super. Ct.), the Court stated, " enerally speaking, the extraordinary circumstances test is not defined but rather is illustrated by way of the facts."
According to 47 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 818 (1995), some courts find that an attorney's mistake or neglect is not imputed to the client and thus may justify relief from default judgment, while others find that if the mistake of the attorney is not excusable, the client cannot be entitled to relief from judgment. See also 21 A.L.R. 3d 1255 (1968). As to whether the mistake is excusable or not, "it appears that each case must be decided upon its own facts in the exercise of the court's discretion." 47 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 818.
The only generalizations that may fairly be made from the decisions are that some courts hold that an attorney's mistake or miscalculation as to the time for pleading or appearance is ordinarily sufficient ground to warrant relief from a default judgment resulting therefrom, while other courts have taken the view that such mistake of an attorney is not in itself sufficient ground for opening or vacating a default or default judgment and that in order for it to be considered as a ground for relief, there must be a showing of sufficient reasons or causes for the mistake.
21 A.L.R. 3d 1255.
The trend in Delaware is that under Rule 60 the mistake of the attorney might justify reopening a case. "Mistake of counsel may be a ground for remedial action under Rule 60(b) if timely action and justice permit." Nashold v. Giles & Ransome, Inc., 245 A.2d 175, 176 (Del. 1968). See also Young v. Reynoso, 2001 WL 880128, at * 2 (Del. Super. Ct.). Generally, a party is bound by the acts of her lawyer. Gebhart v. Ernest DiSabatino & Sones, Inc., 264 A.2d 157, 160 (Del. 1970). "Faults of omission or commission by the plaintiffs' attorneys must be imputed to the plaintiffs." Id. However, in Nanticoke Mem'l Hosp., 498 A.2d 1071 ("Nanticoke Mem'l Hosp."), the Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court's decision to reinstate a case when the appellee's attorney had acted with gross negligence.
Gross negligence alone, however, is not enough to justify reopening a case. Gross negligence of the attorney was one of four factors supporting the Court's decision in Nanticoke Mem'l Hosp. It also considered the fact that 1) the parties had continued with settlement negotiations after the dismissal, 2) there was no evidence that the proper Rule 41(e) and 77(d) notice was sent out by the Superior Court, and, 3) the passage of time was not prejudicial to the defendant-doctor. Moreover, in Young, 2001 WL 880128, at * 2, the Court refused to give relie
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|