IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHARLES H. GIFFORD, III, §
§ No. 571, 2017
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court of the
§ State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. N15J-03882
601 CHRISTIANA INVESTORS, §
LLC, by way of assignment from §
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, §
FSB, §
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: July 13, 2018
Decided: September 25, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
(1) The appellant, Charles H. Gifford, III, has appealed the Superior
Court’s order of November 29, 2017, which denied his motion, under Superior Court
Civil Rule 60(b), for relief from a judgment by confession that was entered against
him in 2016.1 Last year, we affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Gifford’s motion
for reconsideration of a Commissioner’s order, which found, after a hearing, that
1
Gifford v. 601 Christiana Investors, LLC, 2017 WL 5900951 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 29, 2017).
Gifford’s waiver of rights in connection with the entry of judgment by confession
was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.2
(2) The record reflects that, following submission of the parties’ briefs on
the Rule 60(b) motion, oral argument on August 9, 2017, and post-argument
submissions, the Superior Court denied the motion for relief from judgment after
determining that Gifford had no possibility of presenting a meritorious defense to
the entry of judgment, and that his failure to pursue what he claimed was a
meritorious defense in a timely way was not the result of excusable neglect.3 After
carefully considering the parties’ briefs on appeal and the available record, 4 we can
find no error or abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s denial of Gifford’s motion
for relief from judgment.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
2
Gifford v. 601 Christiana Investors, LLC, 2017 WL 1134769 (Del. Mar. 27, 2017).
3
Supra note 1.
4
Gifford did not order a transcript of the Superior Court oral argument for this appeal.
2