LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

MATTHAEUS v MATTHAEUS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 18,710, Plaintiff: MATTHAEUS, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00018710, Repudiation, Respondent, Counterclaim, Assertion, Bonnie Matthaeus, Petitioner, Anticipatory Repudiation, Obligation, Motion, Summary Judgment, Repayment, Basis, Trusts, Agreement, Repay, Debt, Dismiss, Unsupported Assertion, Complaint, Avoid Repayment, William Henry, Vague, Interrogatories, Evident, Del, Contract, Sons, Affirmation , ContentID: 120252249

Case Documents
1 2001-07-05 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127085
9 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 9 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS MOTION TO DISMISS

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RESPONDENT
COUNTERCLAIM
ASSERTION
BONNIE MATTHAEUS
PETITIONER
ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION
OBLIGATION
MOTION
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
REPAYMENT
BASIS
TRUSTS
AGREEMENT
REPAY
DEBT
DISMISS
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION
COMPLAINT
AVOID REPAYMENT
WILLIAM HENRY
VAGUE
INTERROGATORIES
EVIDENT
DEL
CONTRACT
COURT
SONS
AFFIRMATION
PLAINTIFFS
                                                                                       >
                                                                                 II
BONNIE   MATTHAEUS,  as Co-Trustee.                              t-
                                                    11
                   Petitioner,                      1
                                                          (`.A. No.  18710-NC
            v.                                      1

WILLIAM   HENRY  MATTHAEUS,

                   Respondent.

          BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S MOTION TO  DISMISS
        OR IN  THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION  FOR  SUMMARY   .JUDGMENT
                       ON  RESPONDENT'S COUNTERCLAIM





                                  YOUNG  CONAWAY   S'I'ARGATT   &  T.AYI,OR.   L1.P
                                  Richard  H. Cross, Jr. (No 3576)
                                  Eleventh Floor
                                  Wilmington Trust Center
                                  1100  Korth Market Street
                                  P.O. Box 391
                                  Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0391
                                  (302)  571-6706



                                                                  TAB1  E OF CONTENTS
                                                                  ---F-__.


Section
__-
  PaJe

  N o .

N a t u r e   a n d   S t a g e   o f   P r o c e e d i n g s
          I



S    t     a           t    e       m        e          n    t    s          o         f           
          3

SNIPPETS:
  • BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
  • ON RESPONDENT'S COUNTERCLAIM
  • Where The Assertions In The Complaint Is Based On Information And Belief And Makes
  • For nnticipatory Repudiation Is Based On information hnd Belief And \/lakes Only A Vague And
  • I.itigation Is "An Attempt To Avoid Repayment," And The Only Basis Given For The Assertion In
  • No Facts Supporting The Claim For Anticipatory Repudiation
  • The Home Group+ Inc., Del.
  • On klarch 7, 2001, Bonnie Matthaeus filed a petition against William Henry
  • to two trusts held for the sons of Bonnie Matthaeus and Vv~illiam Henry Matthaeus.
  • agreement made in the divorce settlerncnt of Bomlic \,latthaeus and William Hcnr);
  • counterclaim, the debt is not due until November 22, 2003.
  • claim upon which relief can be granted, or in the alternative a lnotion for summary judgment.
  • Should the counterclaim for anticipatory repudiation of contract be
  • has affirmed her obligation to pay.
  • Petitioner and Respondent.
  • repudiation ofthe agreement to repay thts debt of S93,OOO whrr-e he states.
  • Respondent has demanded specific performance and asked the Court to
  • plaintiffs' complaint alleges that questions its
  • dots represent an affirmation of the continuing effectiveness of the
  •    |