Gerald N. Smernoff, Trustee Under the Gerald N. Smernoff Revocable Trust Dated May 24, 2000 v. The King's Grant Condominium Association, Inc.
CourtCourt of Chancery of Delaware
Date FiledSeptember 18, 2026
DocketC.A. No. 2020-0798-BWD
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
BONNIE W. DAVID COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
September 18, 2026
Diane C. Friend, Esq. Mary R. Schrider-Fox, Esq.
Sergovic Carmean McCartney & Steen, Waehler & Schrider-Fox, LLC
Owens, P.A. P.O. Box 1398
P.O. Box 751 92 Atlantic Avenue, Unit B
25 Chestnut Street Ocean View, DE 19970
Georgetown, DE 19947
RE: Gerald N. Smernoff, Trustee Under the Gerald N. Smernoff Revocable
Trust Dated May 24, 2000, et al. v. The King’s Grant Condominium
Association, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0798-BWD
Dear Counsel:
I write to address an Emergency Motion for Rule to Show Cause Regarding
Approval of Work Orders, Payment to Contractor for Work, Deposits for
Replacement Cabinets in the Unit and Reimbursement of the Plaintiffs’ Lost Goods
(the “Motion”), filed yesterday afternoon. See Dkt. 106. Through the Motion,
plaintiffs Gerald N. Smernoff, trustee under the Gerald N. Smernoff Revocable Trust
dated May 24, 2000, and Myrna M. Smernoff, trustee under the Myrna M. Smernoff
Revocable Trust dated May 24, 2000 (“Plaintiffs”), ask the Court to hold a hearing
“as soon as possible” to direct the defendants, The King’s Grant Condominium
Association, Inc. and Council of King’s Grant Condominium (“Defendants”), to
C.A. No. 2020-0798-BWD
September 18, 2026
Page 2 of 3
review work orders, including to replace Plaintiffs’ kitchen cabinets, and to
reimburse various other expenses for repairs made to their vacation condominium
unit. Id. at 2. The Motion is the second “emergency” motion that Plaintiffs have
filed in five months. See Dkt. 101.
As a court of equity, this Court is frequently called upon to resolve emergent
issues—guardians seeking authority to make end-of-life decisions, constitutional
challenges to elections, requests to enjoin imminent transactions, and the like. It is
a privilege and a joy of my position to employ the Court’s expertise to deliver an
expedited ruling in those matters.
When I receive an “emergency” motion, I set aside all other case work to make
an immediate assessment of the needs of the parties. The Court’s resources are not
infinite, and doing so comes at a cost to other litigants who also require the Court’s
attention, including to address real emergencies. Labeling a motion an “emergency”
when no real exigency exists is an abuse of our system. If all litigants insisted on
expedited treatment, our system would grind to a halt.
This matter, like every action on my docket, is very important to me. But the
relief sought in the Motion is not an “emergency.” The parties should confer on a
deadline by which Defendants will respond to the Motion, and the Court will resolve
the Motion on a non-expedited basis.
C.A. No. 2020-0798-BWD
September 18, 2026
Page 3 of 3
Sincerely,
/s/ Bonnie W. David
Bonnie W. David
Vice Chancellor
cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)