NVR, Inc. v. Pearce - Motion for Reargument Denied

DE Superior Court Opinions

Filed March 6th, 2026

Detected March 7th, 2026

Summary

The Delaware Superior Court denied a defendant's motion for reargument in the case of NVR, Inc. v. Pearce. The court found that the defendant raised new arguments for the first time and that the original judgment was valid, denying the motion for reconsideration.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Delaware Superior Court, in the case of NVR, Inc. v. Pearce (Case Nos.: N24J-01786 FJJ and N24J-02658 FJJ), denied Defendant Zachary Pearce's Motion for Reargument. The court determined that the defendant's arguments, including claims about the legal effect of a prior Court of Chancery decision and the validity of a confessed judgment due to the absence of a personal guarantee and consideration, were either untimely or without merit. The court noted that new arguments are generally not permitted in motions for reargument and that the defendant had indeed signed a personal guarantee, which constituted sufficient consideration.

This decision means the prior court order denying the motion to vacate the confessed judgments remains in effect. For legal professionals involved in similar litigation, this reinforces the principle that motions for reargument are not intended for re-hashing decided arguments or introducing entirely new claims. Parties must present all relevant arguments and evidence in their initial submissions, as untimely or new arguments are likely to be denied, and the court will not re-weigh evidence.

Source document (simplified)

IN T HE SU PER IOR C OURT O F THE STATE OF DEL AWARE NVR, Inc., Plain tiff, v. Zachary J. Pearce, Defe nda nt,))))) Case No.: N24J - 017 86 FJJ and NVR, Inc., Plain tiff, v. Zachary J. Pearce and Robin Pearce, Defe nda nts,)))))) Ca se No.: N24J - 026 58 FJJ ORD ER On Def enda nt Za cha ry Pea rce’ s Mot ion For Re argu men t Havi ng co nside red D efen dant, Zac hary J. Pearce’ s Motion for Rearg umen t it ap pear s to the Cou rt tha t: 1. On Feb ru ary 25, 2026 th is Cour t iss ued an Opin ion an d Orde r deny ing De fend ant Zac har y Pearc e’s M otio n to V acate Two C onfes se d judgm ent s unde r Sup erior Cour t Civ il Rul e 60(b) . 2. On Febr uary 26, 2026 Def endant fi led a Motion for Rearg ume nt. Fir st, Pearc e conte nds th at this Co urt mi sappr ehe nded th e legal effec t of the De cember 8, 2 02 5 Dela ware C our t of C hanc ery decis io n

2 in NVR, Inc. v Spring Oaks Developme nt Purc hase r, LLC. 1 Seco nd, Pearce raise s for t he fir st tim e that t he c onfes sed ju dgme nt aga ins t him i s inva lid because of the abse nce of a pe rso nal g uarant ee an d the la ck of a ny cons idera tion fl owi ng to him per sona lly. 3. The pur pos e of mo ving f or rear gume nt is to se e k “reco nsi derat ion of f indi ngs o f fact, conc lusio ns of la w, or ju dgme nt of law. ” “Re argu me nt usua lly will be de nie d unl ess the m ovi ng part y demon stra tes t hat the Cour t over looke d a prec ede nt or le gal pr inci ple th at would have a contr oll ing eff ect, or tha t it ha s misa ppre hen ded th e law o r the fact s in a ma nner af fec ting t he ou tcome of the decis ion. ” “A mot ion f or rearg ume nt sho uld n ot be u sed m ere ly to re has h the ar gum ents a lrea dy decid ed b y the c ourt. ” T o the e xten t the mov ing De fen dant s ass erte d issue s that wer e not rai sed in the submi ssion s in sup port of its m otio n, ne w argum ent s may n ot be pre se nted f or the firs t time i n a mot ion f or rearg ume nt. A co urt ca nno t “re - we igh” evid ence o n a mot ion f or reargu ment. 4. In it s Febr uar y 25, 2 026 this C our t la id out the re aso ns f or th e legal e ffec t of the C ourt of C hancer y de cisi on. That de cis ion invo lve d diffe rent le gal en titi es and di ffere nt de velopm en ts. The Co urt did n ot 1 2025 WL 351 5356 (De l.Ch. 2 025).

3 misap pre hen d the fac ts or the law. 5. For the firs t time Defe nda nt atta ck s the validity of the confe sse d judgm ent on the mer its. This reque st is unt ime ly and on tha t bas is alone i t is den ied. Even if tim el y Defe nda nt ’ s ar gumen ts do es not prev ail. Plain tiff has dem onstra ted tha t Defe nda nt actua lly si gned a persona l guara nte e copie s of whic h we re atta ched as exhi bit s to both c omp lain ts. The fact that a perso nal g uara ntee was r equi red an d gi ven t o obta in the loa n is suffic ie nt con sidera ti on for each confess ed jud gment. As to this is sue th e Court ha s not mi sapp rehen ded the facts or the la w. For the for egoi ng reas ons Def en dant Zac har y Pearce ’s Moti on for Reco nside rat ion be and here by is DENIED th is 6 th da y of March, 2026. IT IS SO ORDE RE D. / s/ Fr anci s J. Jo nes, Jr. Franc is J. J ones, Jr., Jud ge cc: File& Ser veXp ress