EFiled: Nov 30 2015 09:30AM EST
Transaction ID 58220261
Case No. 8213-MA
COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
417 SOUTH STATE STREET
JOHN W. NOBLE DOVER, DELAWARE 19901
VICE CHANCELLOR TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397
FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179
November 30, 2015
Via File&ServeXpress
and First Class Mail
Mr. Paul E. Weber Gary A. Bryde, Esquire
4002 Golfview Drive Law Offices of Gary A. Bryde, P.A.
Newark, DE 19702 724 Yorklyn Road, Suite 100
Wilmington, DE 19807
Re: Weber, Paul E. (Monds, Michael Christopher, minor)
v. Weber, Charles J., Jr.
C.A. No. 8213-MA (VCN)
Date Submitted: September 1, 2015
Dear Mr. Weber and Mr. Bryde:
Plaintiff Paul E. Weber (“Mr. Weber”) seeks specific performance of an oral
contract he allegedly made with his brother, Defendant Charles J. Weber, Jr. (the
“Defendant”), to share their mother’s estate, notwithstanding the mother’s probated
will which left everything to the Defendant.
Mr. Weber has taken exceptions, under Court of Chancery Rule 144, to the
Master’s Final Report of April 20, 2015, which rejected his efforts to file three
motions—partial summary judgment, “suppress” a deposition, and bifurcation
Weber, Paul E. (Monds, Michael Christopher, minor)
v. Weber, Charles J., Jr.
C.A. No. 8213-MA (VCN)
November 30, 2015
Page 2
and/or amendment—as untimely. Two of the motions generally relate to a
“defense fund” of $86,000 allegedly established by his mother for his benefit.1 On
February 17, 2014, the Master entered a case scheduling order that required that
any motion was to be filed on or before August 11, 2014. Mr. Weber did not file
the motions until November 5, 2014, almost three months after the deadline.
Mr. Weber asks to be excused from the sanctions imposed by the Master
resulting from his failure to comply with the case management order. He argues
that the Defendant did not disclose the existence of the defense fund until
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which the Master denied.2 That
motion was filed as a “speaking motion” on August 11, 2014. Defendant’s
opening brief was filed on September 17, 2014. The Court, after reviewing this
matter de novo, rejects Mr. Weber’s contentions and confirms and adopts the
Master’s Final Report.
1
Whether the fund was a gift to him or simply an allocation of her funds for
convenience is a question that does not need to be addressed now.
2
He had argued to the Master that he did not learn of the fund’s existence until
September 17, 2014, when he claims to have received his service copy.
Weber, Paul E. (Monds, Michael Christopher, minor)
v. Weber, Charles J., Jr.
C.A. No. 8213-MA (VCN)
November 30, 2015
Page 3
First, it is not clear that Mr. Weber learned of the $86,000 fund, the impetus
for all three motions, on August 11, 2014, on September 17, 2014, or at some other
(but earlier) time. The document which serves as an accounting of the fund bears a
notation by Defendant’s lawyer’s paralegal that it was forwarded to Mr. Weber on
June 26, 2014.3 That is the date, according to the Notice of Service (of a discovery
response) found among the Court’s records, on which it is most likely that the
document was transmitted to Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber asserts that the information
was later sent to him, along with Defendant’s summary judgment motion or brief.
The summary judgment papers, filed with the Court on August 11, 2014 (the
motion) and September 17, 2014, (the opening brief), do not include the account
summary document.4 If Mr. Weber learned of the defense fund in June 2014, he
3
Def. Charles J. Weber Jr.’s Answering Br. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Exceptions to the
Master’s Report Dated Apr. 20, 2015 Ex. D (“Ramunno Account”).
4
There is a reference in Defendant’s brief to “$85,000 for [the mother’s] alleged
promise to pay [Mr. Weber’s] criminal defense costs.” Def. Charles J. Weber Jr.’s
Opening Br. in Supp. of His Mot. for Summ. J. 2. That reference, however, is
based upon a Statement of Claim Mr. Weber filed on August 8, 2010, with the
Register of Wills in which he sought $528,000. One item identified in the
Statement of Claim was “$85,000 Promise of [the mother] to pay for [Mr.
Weber’s] legal costs in New Castle County Superior Court . . . .” See Complaint
Weber, Paul E. (Monds, Michael Christopher, minor)
v. Weber, Charles J., Jr.
C.A. No. 8213-MA (VCN)
November 30, 2015
Page 4
had more than sufficient time either to bring his motions timely or to seek an
extension of the deadline. He exercised neither of those options, and his failure to
meet a reasonable deadline in a case scheduling order merits the consequences that
the Master imposed.
Second, and more importantly, even if Mr. Weber did not learn of the
defense fund until August 11, 2014 (or perhaps until September 17, 2014, as he
claims), he unreasonably delayed taking any action for a significant period of time.
Had he either filed the motions or sought an extension promptly after he learned of
the defense fund, this might be a very different question. Yet, he has offered no
reason to justify what otherwise appears to be an unwarranted delay; that
shortcoming supports enforcement of the case scheduling order’s deadline.
Ex. A, Weber v. Weber, C.A. No. 6284-MA. Thus, Mr. Weber had known for
some time about the approximately $85,000 that might be used for his defense
costs. That does not necessarily demonstrate knowledge that a defense fund may
have been formally established.
There is also a memorandum, dated September 9, 2009, bearing Defendant’s
name, which, in describing a transfer of his mother’s funds, states that he “left
approximately $86,000 of her funds . . . as a reserve for payment of Attorney Lee
Ramunno and any emerging needs.” Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. Ex. D.
Weber, Paul E. (Monds, Michael Christopher, minor)
v. Weber, Charles J., Jr.
C.A. No. 8213-MA (VCN)
November 30, 2015
Page 5
In sum, the Master’s rejection of the motions was appropriate either because
Mr. Weber had learned of the defense fund well in advance of the deadline or
because Mr. Weber, if he learned of the defense fund on August 11, 2014, failed to
move with reasonable dispatch to protect his interests.5
Accordingly, the Master’s Final Report is confirmed and adopted as the
Court’s final order on this aspect of these proceedings. The three motions are
denied. Further proceedings in this action are to be in the Master’s jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John W. Noble
JWN/cap
cc: The Hon. Kim Ayvazian
Register in Chancery-K
5
Mr. Weber filed another action on March 16, 2011, Weber v. Weber, C.A.
No. 6284-MA (Del. Ch.), to pursue claims against his mother’s estate. That action
was dismissed because of his failure to prosecute. He has indicated an intention to
reopen that matter under Court of Chancery Rule 60(b), citing the defense fund as
newly discovered evidence. See Letter of Paul E. Weber (July 17, 2015).