COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
SAM GLASSCOCK III
VICE CHANCELLOR
STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
Richard A. Forsten, Esq. Max B. Walton, Esq.
Pamela J. Scott, Esq. Stephanie S. Riley, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Fenton, Esq. Brandon R. Harper, Esq.
SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
& LEHR LLP 267 East Main Street
1201 Market Street, Suite 2300 Newark, DE 19711
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
RE: Ocean Bay Mart, Inc. v. The City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware,
C.A. No. 2019-0467-SG, Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
Submitted: January 29, 2021
Decided: April 13, 2021
Dear Counsel:
I have before me the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. It appears
to me that this case turns, in part, on a very narrow factual issue. That is, whether
the Plaintiff, when it began planning its redevelopment as a condominium rather
than a subdivision, was entitled to rely in good faith on its interpretation of the City
Code existing at the time. The City has proffered deposition testimony indicating
that the Plaintiff believed that the City Code was “fairly confusing at least for an
amateur and even somewhat confusing for experts”1 and argued that the Plaintiff
1
Def.’s Opening Br. in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. and Answering Br. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot.
for Summ. J. 6 n.8, Dkt. No. 40 [hereinafter “Def. OB-AB”].
purposefully avoided submitting his redevelopment plan to the City for concept
review because it feared the City could close the loophole the Plaintiff believed it
had found in the City Code.2 The Plaintiff has pointed to deposition testimony
suggesting that the Plaintiff believed that its redevelopment could be done as a
condominium if drafted and built correctly, as well as statements from various City
officials indicating that the Plaintiff could redevelop as a condominium. The
stipulated timeline submitted by the parties, while helpful, does not resolve the issue.
Accordingly, the factual issue of good faith reliance, at least, in support of which
both sides have proffered deposition testimony, in my view, is best resolved through
development of a record at trial.
The parties may consider their summary judgment briefing as pre-trial briefs.
For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment
are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Sam Glasscock III
cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)
2
Def. OB-AB 7.
2