Background
Gerald N. Smernoff and Myrna M. Smernoff, as trustees of their respective revocable trusts, own a vacation condominium unit and sued The King’s Grant Condominium Association, Inc. and the Council of King’s Grant Condominium.
On September 17, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking a prompt hearing and an order directing defendants to review work orders, including work to replace kitchen cabinets, and to reimburse expenses related to repairs and allegedly lost goods. It was the plaintiffs’ second motion labeled “emergency” in five months.
The Court’s Holding
Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David held that the requested relief did not present an emergency warranting expedited treatment. The court emphasized that emergency motions require an immediate assessment that displaces other matters needing the court’s attention.
The court directed the parties to confer on a deadline for defendants to respond to the motion. It will decide the motion on a non-expedited basis.
Key Takeaways
- A request for repair-related condominium relief was not sufficiently exigent to justify emergency treatment.
- Calling a motion an emergency without real exigency abuses the court’s expedited process.
- The underlying motion remains pending and will be resolved through ordinary, non-expedited procedures.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Chancery litigants must show genuine urgency before seeking emergency scheduling. Routine disputes over repairs, work orders, and reimbursement generally will proceed on the ordinary timetable absent circumstances requiring immediate judicial action.