Freeman Foundation Charitable Lead Annuity Trust v. Dessen, No. CPU6-09-002158. (Del.Gen.Sess. 12/22/2009), CPU6-09-002158.

• Decision Date: 22 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. CPU6-09-002158.,CPU6-09-002158.
• Parties: THE FREEMAN FOUNDATION CHARITABLE LEAD ANNUITY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. DAVID S. DESSEN and MERYL DESSEN, Defendants.
• Court: Court of General Sessions of Delaware

Page 1

THE FREEMAN FOUNDATION CHARITABLE LEAD ANNUITY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. DAVID S. DESSEN and MERYL DESSEN, Defendants.

No. CPU6-09-002158.

Court of Common Pleas of Delaware, Sussex County.

Submitted: December 3, 2009.

Decided: December 22, 2009.

Neal J. Levitsky, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Defendants, Pro Se.

DECISION ON APPEAL FROM COMMISSIONER'S RECOMMENDATION

KENNETH S. CLARK, Jr., Judge.

Defendants David S. Dessen and Meryl Dessen appeal the Commissioner's recommendation that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. For the following reasons, the Court accepts the Commissioner's recommendation, and enters judgment accordingly.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for unpaid ground rents filed by the plaintiff against the Defendants, homeowners in the Sea Colony West, Phase IV condominium in Bethany Beach, Delaware. After defendants filed an answer to the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on October 21, 2009. The Commissioner heard the motion, and defendants' opposition thereto, on November 12, 2009, and recommended that summary judgment be granted. Defendants have appealed the Commissioner's recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for summary judgment is a case-dispositive determination. When reviewing case-dispositive matters the judge of the Court reviews the decision de novo. A judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Commissioner. CCP Civ. R. 112 (A) (4) (iv).

DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed de novo the transcript of the hearing before the Commissioner, and findings and recommendations. The Court has also reviewed and considered Defendants' arguments set forth in their appeal and the Plaintiff's responses thereto. The gravamen of Defendants' claim on appeal is that there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff is, in fact, the entity with whom Defendants are in privity, and to whom they owe ground rents. The Court has reviewed the deeds and other documents of record submitted by Plaintiff in support of the motion, as well as the affidavit of Elizabeth McDonald. The Court finds that Plaintiff is the owner of record of the real property subject to the lease executed by Defendants as tenants. Plaintiff's right to receive the ground rents, and Defendants' obligations to pay such rents, run with the land. Defendants have filed no opposing affidavits. The pleadings, affidavits and documents of record show that...