In civil cases, the party who has suffered an adverse verdict, judgment or decision may seek to alter, set aside or reverse it, as appropriate, by a motion for a new trial (which may be joined with a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or requested in that motion as alternative relief), a motion to alter or amend the judgment, or a motion for reargument.35 The purpose of these motions is to permit the trial court to correct manifestly prejudicial errors in the proceeding without compelling the injured party to resort to an appellate court.36
A motion for a new trial must be filed within ten days after the entry of judgment or after the rendition of a verdict if the court has directed that the judgment is not to be entered immediately upon the verdict.37 Not more than ten days after the entry of judgment, the court on its own initiative may order a new trial for any reason for which it might have granted a new trial on the motion of a party. A court may grant a motion for a new trial for a reason other than the one stated in the motion, but only after giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard. An order granting a motion for a new trial must specify the reasons.38
A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be served and filed no later than ten days after the entry of judgment.39 A motion for reargument must be served and filed within five days after the filing of the court’s opinion or the receipt of the court’s decision. The moving party must serve a copy of the motion upon the judge.40 The time limits for filing the foregoing motions are rigid and cannot be extended.41
In courts other than the Justice of the Peace Court, rules provide that if the motion for a new trial is accompanied by affidavits, the opposing party has ten days after service of such affidavits in which to serve and file its answer and opposing affidavits and brief, if any. This period may be extended for an additional period not exceeding twenty days (in the Court of Chancery) or ten days (in the Superior Court, Court of Common Pleas or Family Court) either by the court for good cause shown or pursuant to a written stipulation by the parties.42 In the Court of Chancery, reply affidavits may be filed only upon receiving approval of the court in the exercise of its discretion.43 In other courts, apart from the Justice of the Peace Court,44 reply affidavits and briefs may be served and filed within ten days after service of the opposing affidavits and briefs. This time may also be extended for an additional ten days either by the court for good cause shown or by the parties upon written stipulation.45 copies of the motions, answering briefs and affidavits should also be served upon the judge.46
On a motion for a new trial, the court gives tremendous deference to the jury’s verdict.46.1 Apart from prejudicial errors of law, the denial of a motion for a new trial will constitute an abuse of discretion only if the jury verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, no reasonable jury could have reached the result, and the denial was untenable and unreasonable.46.2
Like a motion for a new trial, a motion for reargument serves the purpose of affording the trial court an opportunity to correct errors prior to appeal.46.3 A motion for reargument is permitted to allow the parties to apprise the court of a misapprehension of law or of the facts which would change the outcome of the decision were the court correctly and/or fully informed.47 Thus, a motion for reargument will be denied unless the court has overlooked a decision or principle of law that would have controlling effect or unless the court misapprehended the law or the facts such that the outcome of the decision would be affected.48 A motion for reargument will also be denied where it relies on grounds not raised in the original proceeding49 or where it merely advances the same matters that were already considered in the original proceeding.50
On a motion for reargument, a court will not consider new arguments not previously raised, or affidavits containing evidence not previously introduced. A motion for reargument involves only a reexamination of the facts in the record at the time of decision or the law as it applies to those facts.50.1
The court may hear oral argument on the motions.51 In actions tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law, or make new findings of fact and conclusions of law, and direct the entry of a new judgment.52 A party may not file a motion to reargue the denial of a motion for reargument. Nor may one party file a motion for reargument in response to the adverse party’s motion for reargument.52.1
35. Ch. Ct. R. 59; Super. Ct. Civ. R. 50(b), 59; Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 50(b), 59; Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59; J.P. Ct. Civ. R. 20.
36. Ramon v. Ramon, 963 A.2d 128, 136 (Del. 2008); Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969); Salisbury v. Credit Service, Inc., 199 A. 674, 683 (Del. Super. 1937).
37. See Ch. Ct. R. 59(b); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b); J.P. Ct. Civ. R. 20(c).
38. Ch. Ct. R. 59(d); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(c); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 59(c); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(c); J.P. Ct. Civ. R. 20(d); Tyndall v. Tyndall, 214 A.2d 124, 125 (Del. 1965); Gaspero v. Douglas, C.A. No. SOC-DE-45, slip op. at 2, Stiftel, J. (Del. Super. Oct. 7, 1983).
39. Ch. Ct. R. 59(e); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(d); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 59(d); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(d); J. P. Ct. Civ. R. 20(e).
40. Ch. Ct. R. 59(1); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e); Comm. Pls. Ct, Civ. R. 59(e); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e). In the Justice of the Peace Court, a motion for reargument after the filing of the court’s opinion or decision on a motion for a new trial or on a motion to alter or amend the judgment is not permitted. J.P. Ct. Civ. R. 20(1).
41. Ch. Ct. R. 6(b); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(b); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 6(b); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 6(b). See also Tilcon Delaware, Inc. v. Greenville Center Associates, L.P., C.A. No. 95L-03-001-JOH, Herlihy, J. (Del. Super. May 29, 1996) (motion for reargument). No such restriction seems to apply in the Justice of the Peace Court. See J.P. Ct. Civ. R. 8(b).
42. Ch. Ct. R. 59(c); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. P. 59(b); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b).
43. Ch. Ct. R. 59(c).
44. In the Justice of the Peace Court, the rule merely requires that the court schedule a hearing on a motion no later than five days after the motion is filed. J.P. Ct. Civ. R. 20(c).
45. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. it 59(b); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b).
46. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b).
46.1. Cuonzo v. Shore, 958 A.2d 840, 844 (Del. 2008); Burkett-Woods v. Haines, 906 A.2d 756, 764 (Del. 2006).
46.2. Wilhelm v. Ryan, 903 A.2d 745, 755 (Del. 2006).
46.3. Ramon v. Ramon, 963 A.2d 128, 136 (Del. 2008).
47. Mainiero v. Microbyx Corp., 699 A.2d 320, 321 (Del. Ch. 1997); Red Mill Farms Property Owners Ass’n v. County Council of Sussex County, C.A. No. 941-S, slip op. at 3, Longobardi, V.C. (Del. Ch. Feb. 17, 1984).
48. Interim Health Care v. Fournier, C.A. No. 13003, slip op. at 2, Jacobs, V.C. (Del. Ch. Mar. 15, 1994); Wilshire Restaurant Group, Inc. v. Ramada, Inc., C.A. No. 11506, slip op. at 2, Jacobs, V.C. (Del. Ch. Dec. 19, 1990); Stepak v. Tracinda Corp., C.A. No. 8457, slip op. at 2, Allen, C. (Del. Ch. Sept. 6, 1989), app. refused mem., 567 A.2d 424 (Del. 1989); Stein v. Orloff, C.A. No. 7276, slip op. at 3, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Sept. 25, 1985), app. refused mem., 504 A.2d 572 (Del. 1986); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., C.A. No. 88C.JA-118, slip op. at 5, Ridgely, J. (Del. Super. Jan. 14, 1994).
49. Ingersoll v. Rollins Broadcasting of Delaware, Inc., 269 A.2d 217 (Del. 1970); Kern v. NCD Industries, Inc., 316 A.2d 576, 584 (Del. Ch. 1973); H. v. H., 314 A.2d 420, 422 (Del. Super. 1973).
50. McElroy v. Shell Petroleum, Inc., No. 375, 1992, slip op. at 3-4, Moore, J. (Del. Nov. 24, 1992) (ORDER), disposition reported at 618 A.2d 91 (Del. 1992) (TABLE); Miles, Inc. v. Cookson America, Inc., 677 A.2d 505, 506 (Del. Ch. 1995); Red Mill Farms Property Owners Ass’n v. County Council of Sussex County, CA. No. 941-S, slip op. at 3, Longobardi, V.C. (Del. Ch. Feb. 17, 1984).
50.1. Ramon v. Ramon, 963 A.2d 128, 136 (Del. 2008); Miles, Inc. v. Cookson America, Inc., 677 A.2d 505, 506 (Del. Ch. 1995); Maldonado v. Flynn, C.A. No. 4800-NC, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. July 7, 1980).
51. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b).
52. Ch. Ct. R. 59(a); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(a); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 59(a); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(a); Szumowski v Kirfides, C.A. No. 81C-MR-33, slip op. at 3, Poppiti, J. (Del. Super. Aug. 29, 1983).
52.1. Ramon v. Ramon, 963 A.2d 128, 136 (Del. 2008).
© 2010 David L. Finger