Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court considered whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen a summary judgment entered after the plaintiffs missed the deadline to respond. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ mistaken belief about an extended response deadline constituted excusable neglect under Superior Court Rule 60(b), and that the trial court should have considered the proposed response and affidavit when evaluating the possibility of a different merits outcome and prejudice. The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the summary judgment under Rule 60(b) when appellants missed the response deadline because they mistakenly believed appellees' supplemental filing extended the deadline.
- Whether the Superior Court improperly determined that the outcome might not differ on the merits without considering appellants' proposed response and affidavit.
- Whether the Superior Court was required to consider prejudice to appellees as an additional condition for Rule 60(b) relief.
Holdings
- A mistaken belief about the response deadline may constitute excusable neglect when, considering all surrounding circumstances, the mistake could have been made by a reasonably prudent person. Keener's mistake, the appellees' delayed supplemental filing, and Keener's prompt attempt to cure the default were sufficient to establish excusable neglect.
- The Superior Court had to consider Keener's proposed response and affidavit before determining whether the outcome might be different if the motion were heard on the merits.
- The Superior Court was required to consider whether reopening the judgment would cause the Iskens substantial prejudice; the court's failure to address that prong required remand.
Key quotations
“The grounds for relief set forth in Rule 60(b) are liberally construed because of the policy favoring trials on the merits.” (at 409)
“Keener had a reason for his failure to file the response on time. He thought that he had 20 additional days because of the Iskens’ supplemental filing. Keener was wrong, but a person can be reasonably prudent yet still be mistaken.” (at 410)
Factual background
Keener and Xtreme Construction allegedly performed renovation work on the Iskens' home from November 2005 through August 2008 and submitted itemized bills that the Iskens did not pay. The Iskens moved for summary judgment on July 21, 2011, asserting that Keener's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, but inadvertently filed the exhibits to Mr. Isken's affidavit approximately three weeks later. Keener mistakenly believed the supplemental filing extended his deadline to respond by twenty days, missed the deadline, and promptly moved for reconsideration while attempting to file his response and supporting affidavit.
Procedural history
Keener sued the Iskens for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract arising from unpaid renovation work. The Iskens moved for summary judgment based on the statutes of limitations, and the Superior Court granted the motion after Keener missed the response deadline. The Superior Court denied Keener's motion for reconsideration, concluding that there was no excusable neglect and no basis to believe the claims could overcome the limitations defense. The Supreme Court of Delaware reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The Superior Court must consider Keener's response and affidavit in determining whether the outcome may be different on the merits and must consider whether the Iskens would suffer substantial prejudice. Jurisdiction is not retained.