Hastings v. Hosler, N15C-12-242 ALR

Plaintiffs Larry and Kathy Hastings and K & L Backhoe Services sued Nicole Hosler seeking $68,610.53 for unpaid loans and a $1,000 bond payment, alleging multiple loans made beginning in 2012.
Defendant Hosler, self-represented, asserted incapacity due to drug addiction (intoxication) as a defense and indicated witnesses (her mother) would testify Plaintiffs knew she was intoxicated when agreements were made.
Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing Hosler offered only evidence of a general addiction and not that Plaintiffs knew she was intoxicated at contract formation.
Court review of loan documents revealed inconsistencies and missing information (lenders not listed, amounts not matching, signatures without lender/date/repayment terms) casting doubt on claimed balances.
Hosler moved to compel discovery responses alleging Plaintiffs missed a discovery deadline; the court found both parties had produced discovery per an earlier order and denied Hosler’s motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contracts are voidable for intoxication	Hastings: Hosler produced only general evidence of addiction; no proof Plaintiffs knew she was intoxicated, so contracts are enforceable	Hosler: She was intoxicated when signing and Plaintiffs knew; witness testimony will corroborate	Court: Material fact dispute exists on intoxication and Plaintiffs’ knowledge; summary judgment denied
Whether loan amounts and lenders are supported by documents	Hastings: Attached loan documents establish amounts owed totaling Plaintiffs’ figure	Hosler: Documents are inconsistent/missing; amounts and lender identities are unclear	Court: Document inconsistencies create material factual disputes; summary judgment denied
Whether Plaintiffs met burden for summary judgment	Hastings: No genuine issue of material fact; entitled to judgment as a matter of law	Hosler: Disputes over intoxication and document accuracy preclude summary judgment	Court: Burden not satisfied because factual disputes remain; motion denied
Motion to compel discovery	Hastings: Plaintiffs complied with court-ordered discovery production	Hosler: Plaintiffs failed to provide discovery by deadline	Court: Both parties produced discovery per prior order; motion to compel denied; late documents (if any) excluded at trial

Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (movant bears initial burden and burden shifts to nonmovant at summary judgment)
Brozka v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355 (Del. 1995) (at summary judgment courts view facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party)