Cynthia H. Hall and Shelley I. Carter v. Beverly A. Mundy, C.A. No. 2023-0253-BWD

Plaintiffs Hall and Carter challenged transfers of real property originally owned by their (alleged) paternal grandmother, Mariah Jane Walters, which subsequently passed to Walters' only surviving child, Chester George Walters Jr., then to Mariah’s sister, Frances Mason, and then to Mason's heirs.
Plaintiffs argued and succeeded at trial in showing by a preponderance of the evidence that their father was Joshua Harry Walters, Mariah’s predeceased son, making them heirs and giving them an interest in the property.
Defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by laches, due to more than forty years’ delay in asserting their rights after various estate filings.
The Court, in a post-trial memorandum, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, rejecting laches and the defense arguments regarding intestate succession.
Defendants then moved for reargument under Chancery Rule 59(f), raising new legal theories and challenging the prior findings.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the Court issued this letter opinion denying the motion for reargument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Laches Defense	No unreasonable delay; property believed to be “heirs property” so no action necessary.	Plaintiffs delayed 40+ years, so claim is barred by laches.	Delay reasonable; laches does not bar claim.
Adverse Possession Statutes	Defendants did not prove adverse possession elements; statutes immaterial.	Register of Wills filings created record title; adverse possession statutes apply, barring claim.	Defendants failed to establish adverse possession; statutes do not bar claim.
Standard of Proof	Preponderance of evidence is correct standard (argued by both sides post-trial).	After trial, claim that clear and convincing evidence was required.	Issue waived as not previously raised; preponderance stands.
Motion for Reargument Standard	Decision not predicated on factual or legal error, so motion should be denied.	Court misunderstood facts and misapplied law; reconsideration needed.	No misapprehension or misapplication; motion denied.

Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, 996 A.2d 120 (Del. 2010) (sets standard for reargument motions—must show misunderstanding of material fact or misapplication of law)
Mitchell v. Dorman, 860 A.2d 810 (Del. 2004) (laches defense rejected where plaintiff reasonably assumed property rights were secure)