Keener v. Isken
2013 Del. LEXIS 4
| Del. | 2013Background
- Keener and Xtreme Construction sued the Iskens for breach of contract and tortious interference for work on renovations to the Iskens’ home.
- The Iskens moved for summary judgment on limitations grounds; exhibits were filed late, but the motion was heard and granted August 25, 2011.
- Keener believed supplemental exhibits extended response time by 20 days, based on the timing of the Iskens’ later filing.
- Keener filed a motion for reconsideration on September 2, 2011, attempt to file response and affidavit was blocked by the court’s “closed” status.
- The trial court denied reconsideration, and the case proceeded to appeal focused on excusable neglect and Rule 60(b) relief and merits-based policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying relief under Rule 60(b). | Keener argues excusable neglect due to mistaken 20-day extension. | Iskens contend no valid reason for neglect and no extension in rules. | Yes, improper denial; remand required to apply Rule 60(b) standards. |
| Whether the court should consider merits on remand and prejudice to Iskens. | Remand allows consideration of whether outcome could differ on the merits. | Prejudice to Iskens should be addressed on remand. | Remand necessary to assess possible merits-based outcome and prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. DuShuttle, 58 A.3d 403 (Del. 2013) (appeals to merits-focused policy in rulings)
- Adams v. Aidoo, 58 A.3d 410 (Del. 2013) (merits policy and excusable neglect considerations)
- Dishmon v. Fucci, 32 A.3d 338 (Del. 2011) (liberal Rule 60(b) relief due to merits bias)
- Tsipouras v. Tsipouras, 677 A.2d 493 (Del. 1996) (surrounding circumstances in excusable neglect)