Jennifer August v. The Glade Property Owners Association, Inc.

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: August 22, 2023
Date Decided: August 23, 2023

Jennifer August Aaron E. Mooore, Esquire
2 Black Duck Reach 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 600
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware 19971 P.O. Box 8888
Wilmington, Delaware 19899

Re: August v. The Glade Property Owners Association, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 2020-0834-BWD

Dear Counsel and Ms. August:

This letter opinion addresses Plaintiff Jennifer August’s Exceptions to the

Magistrate’s Final Reports of May 1, 2023, and May 11, 2023 (the “Reports”); the

Defendants’ Exceptions to the Reports will be addressed separately. Ms. August is

a resident of a housing development on Holland Glade, between Lewes and

Rehoboth, known (rather generically) as “The Glade.” She has sued her

homeowners’ association and associated persons and entities, with a variety of

complaints. Before me are Exceptions to the Reports, which address cross-motions

for summary judgement. Ms. August is a pro se litigant who is obviously intelligent

and articulate, as demonstrated at oral argument on the Exceptions; she is also an

enthusiastic litigant. Her Exceptions are plethoric—she stated dozens in oral

argument and perhaps more in her briefing. After a careful, de novo review of the
record,1 however, I affirm and adopt the well-reasoned, careful, and patient analysis

in the Reports as it pertains to Plaintiff’s Exceptions.

The Plaintiff’s Exceptions fall into three buckets. First, she raises purported

exceptions to an earlier Master’s decision, dated March 15, 2023. Those exceptions

were filed on August 16, 2023, and are thus untimely.2 The second bucket involves

the Magistrate’s analysis of her statutory claims and tort claims, which (for the

reasons stated in the Reports) I find correct and adopt as a decision of this Court.

The third bucket is brimful of complaints that the Magistrate did not adequately state

what evidence and issues were fair game for forthcoming litigation on those causes

of action for which the Magistrate denied the Defendants’ Motions for Summary

Judgement, and which remain for trial. Those “exceptions”, which amount to

requests for advisory rulings on matters in the Magistrate’s docket, are unripe.

Accordingly, Ms. August’s Exceptions are DENIED. To the extent the

foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Vice Chancellor

1
Pursuant to the standard set out in our Supreme Court’s Opinion in Digiaccobe v. Sestak, 743
A.2d 180, 184 (Del. 1999).
2
Ct. Ch. R. 144(d)(1). The Plaintiff contends she was not on notice of this decision, and has
filed for relief with the Magistrate, under Rule 60(b). My denial of Plaintiff’s Exceptions is
without prejudice to this motion, which is, presumably, before the Magistrate.
2