Naughty Monkey LLC v. MarineMax Northeast LLC, C.A. No. 5095-VCN (Del. Ch. Aug. 31, 2011), read letter ruling here. (One of the prior decisions by the Court of Chancery in this case was highlighted here.)

Why this ruling is noteworthy: This relatively short 11-page decision merits a brief blurb for its usefulness in exemplifying the truism that winning a judgment is sometimes the easiest part of a case–and for providing a procedural lesson in enforcing a judgment whose implementation led to an imbroglio.

Background: The judgment in this case was established in a December 2010 decision reported at 2010 WL 5545409 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2010). In February 2010, the Court wrote another opinion to clarify the contours and content of the judgment, which entitled the plaintiff to a $1.6 million credit towards the purchase of a boat. This latest decision required the defendant to apply that credit towards the purchase of a particular boat called a Ferretti that was the subject of a post-trial agreement.

Notable Aspect of Decision: The peculiar procedural twist in this decision is that the plaintiff did not seek specific performance of the post-trial agreement with the defendant that, the plaintiff argued successfully, implemented the court’s prior judgment. Footnote 23 explains why. The plaintiff used an agent who did not disclose his principal. The defendant did not know he was negotiating with the plaintiff’s agent. The Court noted in passing that it did not need to decide whether that circumstance of nebulous rectitude (in light of the parties’ checkered relationship), would have barred specific performance–but at the end of the day it did not matter. The Court also denied requests for fees from both sides, relying on the venerable American Rule.