In Brandywine River Properties LLC v Maffett, 2007 WL 2804053 (Del.Ch., Sept. 28, 2007), read opinion here, the Chancery Court applied and discussed Chancery Court Rule 59(f) in connection with a motion for reargument which in some ways seemed to have been cloaked in a request for clarification. The facts of the case involved the specific performance of an option to purchase real estate. Issues developed after the first decision regarding which party would pay certain costs and taxes after the hypothetical date the court chose for giving equitable ownership to one party.