IN 'I`HE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
RAY FACCIOLO,
Plaintiff-Below/ Appellant,
C.A. No. CPU4-16-001547
V.
NINA VIETRI,
\./\_/\/\_/\_/\_/\_/\/\/
Defendant-Below/Appellee.
Submitted: January 31 , 201 7
Decided: March 22, 2017
Melissa L. Rhoads, Esquire Max B. Walton, Esquire
Tighe & Cottrell, P.A. Connolly Gallagher LLP
704 N. King Street, Ste. 500 267 E. l\/Iain Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 Newark, DE 19711
Aliome}for P/az'ntg'j" Altomgyfor Defendan!
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ]UDGMENT
This is an appeal from a decision by the Justice of the Peace Court pursuant to 70
De/. C. § 95 7 7. The underlying dispute involves Plaintiff-BeloW/Appellant Ray Facciolo
(“Plaintiff”) seeking reimbursement for certain items and expenses incurred on behalf of
Defendant-BeloW/Appellee Nina Vietri (“Defendant”). Defendant brings this Motion for
Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) pursuant to Coun‘ of sz/mon P/ea§ Cz'I/z`/ Ru/e 56, arguing
certain debts Plaintiff seeks to recover are barred by the statute of limitations On January
31, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the Motion and reserved decision. This is the Court’s
decision on the Motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff initiated an action against Defendant in the Justice
of the Peace Court seeking the remaining balance on a debt allegedly owed. On May 25,
2016, the Justice of the Peace Court held a hearing on the matter, Where Defendant moved
to dismiss pursuant to ]P Caurz‘ Cz`w`/ Ru/e 47(b). On ]une 1, 2016, the Justice of the Peace
Court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s case. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court, commencing the present action.
Plaintist complaint on appeal is identical to his complaint-below The pm se
complaint reads: “Please file a debt action against the defendant Nina Vietri for the
remaining balance in Which she stopped making payments to Plaintiff. Defendant had a
history of regular payments Last payment Was in 2014. Due to delinquency in the lack of
communication + [sic] plan of action the issue has been escalated.” On July 5, 2016,
Defendant filed an Answer to the complaint, denying all substantive allegations and asserting
a number of affirmative defenses
On November 1, 2016, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment.
On November 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response opposing Defendant’s Motion. On
November 18, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the Motion, and granted leave for the
parties to conduct additional discovery On January 6, 2017, the Court held another hearing
on the Motion, and passed the matter to allow Plaintiff time to review Defendant’s
responses to his requests for admissions The Court also issued a scheduling order giving
the parties an opportunity to file a joint stipulation dismissing certain claims if, upon review
of the discovery, both parties could agree such claims were barred by the statute of
limitations Ultimately, the parties could not reach an agreement. Therefore, the Court held
another hearing on January 31, 2017, and at the conclusion thereof, reserved decision on the
l\/Iotion.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
Defendant argues three grounds for summary judgment, all of which stern from an
affidavit and bill of particulars filed by Plaintiff in the justice of the Peace Court. First,
Defendant argues certain expenses Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for are barred by the
statute of limitations Specifically, Defendant contends Plaintist affidavit states certain
debts originate in 2012. These debts are: (1) a July 5, 2012 trip to Myrtle Beach; (2) a
September 29, 2012 trip to Atlantic City; and (3) an October 23, 2012 trip to Aruba.
Defendant argues no actions to recover these debts can be brought after the expiration of
three years from the accruing of such cause of action. Because Plaintiff conceded that these
debts were incurred before December 2012, and Plaintiff did not bring this action until
December 2015, Defendant contends those debts are barred by the three year statute of
limitations
Second, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s affidavit states he is seeking to collect debts on
behalf of persons who are not parties to this action, specifically, Plaintiff’ s mother and twin
cousins Because Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of non-parties, Defendant contends
Plaintiff lacks standing to bring these claims because he cannot show an individualized
injury-in-fact. Accordingly, Defendant argues these claims must be dismissed
Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a
legally enforceable agreement between the parties Defendant maintains every alleged debt
listed in Plaintist affidavit relate to a time period when the parties were in a relationship ln
essence, Defendant contends that Plaintiff is trying to force her to repay for gifts that were
given to her during the course of their relationship Moreover, Defendant argues the text
messages upon which Plaintiff relies only indicate that she would give Plaintiff money while
they were dating. Defendant maintains that this does not amount to a binding contractual
commitment which requires her to repay the amounts claimed. Furthermore, Defendant
argues there are no ascertainable terms in the alleged agreement, making it unenforceable
For these reasons, Defendant argues she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Conversely, Plaintiff maintains Defendant’s Motion must be denied because the
affidavit upon which Defendant relies raises several genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff
contends the affidavit refers to Plaintiff having a history of loaning money to Defendant,
some of which Defendant successfully repaid. Plaintiff argues this is inconsistent with
Defendant’s position that there was no contractual obligation to repay the debt.
Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that a partial payment on the debt tolls the statute of
limitations, because a new promise to pay is implied from the partial payment of debt. lt is
Plaintist position that he is entitled to trial on the issues to determine whether any of the
alleged debts are barred by the statute of limitations Accordingly, Plaintiff moves the Court
to deny Defendant’s Motion. Plaintiff does, however, concede a lack of standing to proceed
on the two debts allegedly owed to Plaintiff’ s mother and twin cousins and withdraws those
claims
LEGAL STANDARD
Court of Common P/eas Cz'vz`/ Rz¢/e 56(¢) provides that “judgment shall be rendered
forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”1 lf the record reveals that
material facts are in dispute, or if the factual record has not been developed thoroughly
enough to allow the Court to apply the law to the factual record rubjudz`ve, then summary
judgment must be denied.2
“In considering a motion for summary judgment the court must view the facts in a
light favorable to the non-moving party and accept, as true, all undisputed factual
assertions.”3 The Court will grant a motion for summary judgment when there is no genuine
issue of material fact, and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.4 However, a motion for summary judgment will be denied when “a more thorough
inquiry into the facts is desirable to clarify the application of the law to the circumstances.”5
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, because Plaintiff concedes a lack of standing and withdraws
his claims to the debts allegedly owed to his mother and twin cousins, the Court need not
address the issue of standing. The Court will address Defendant’s remaining arguments: (1)
1 CCP Civ. R. 56(c).
2 .S`ee Eherro/e z/. Lou/en