Boatswain v. Miller
This text of Boatswain v. Miller (Boatswain v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KEVIN BOATSWAIN, an individual; ) and MICHELLE BOATSWAIN, ) an individual, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) C.A. N22C-07-020 AML v. ) ) ROBERT MILLER, an individual; ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LUKE REAL ESTATE, a business ) entity form unknown; WILMINGTON ) SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB, ) Trustee, ) ) Defendants. )
Submitted: October 6, 2022 Decided: January 23, 2023
ORDER
Upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss: GRANTED
1. The plaintiffs in this case filed a complaint against the defendants for
racial discrimination and breach of fiduciary duty associated with the plaintiffs’
attempt to purchase a residential property. The defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for racial
discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and the Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction to resolve fiduciary duty claims. After reviewing the parties’
submissions, it is apparent the defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted.
1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. This action arises out of an attempted sale of property between Kevin
Boatswain and Michelle Boatswain (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Robert Miller,
Luke Real Estate, and Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB (collectively,
“Defendants”).1
3. Plaintiffs were tenants of a residential property located at 411 South
Harrison Street, Wilmington, Delaware (the “Property”).2 Plaintiffs began leasing
the Property in 2009.3 In February 2021, the Property went into foreclosure and was
purchased by Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB.4 Thereafter, Defendant
Miller, the broker and listing agent for the Property, listed the Property for $79,000.5
Because Plaintiffs were still living on the premises, the Property’s listing stated it
was offered for sale “sight unseen.”6 “Sight unseen” means a property inspection is
not required for the transaction to close.7 Typically, no inspection is required for a
cash offer because the buyer bears all the risk in that type of transaction. A financed
transaction, on the other hand, carries potential risk for the seller and lender.
1 Compl. ¶¶ 5-14. 2 Id. ¶ 5. 3 Id. 4 Id. ¶ 6. 5 Id. 6 Defs.’ Opening Br. at 1. 7 Id.
2 4. Plaintiffs found the listing for the Property, contacted Defendant Miller,
and submitted a financed offer to purchase the Property for $90,000. The offer was
submitted through Defendants to Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC (the
“Seller”).8 As part of the offer, Plaintiffs sent Defendant Miller proof that Plaintiffs
were pre-approved for financing in the amount of $72,000.9 The Seller responded to
Plaintiffs’ financed offer by requiring an interior inspection, which Defendant Miller
then conveyed to Plaintiffs.10
5. In response, Plaintiffs questioned why an interior inspection was
necessary if they were not using Defendants for financing.11 Defendant Miller
clarified the Seller only would accept cash offers because there were tenants in the
house and the interior’s condition was not known.12 Defendant Miller also added
that, for the Seller to consider a financed offer, the Seller first would need to inspect
the Property’s interior and obtain photographs.13 Consequently, Defendant Miller
made repeated requests to Plaintiffs for access to the Property to conduct an
inspection. Plaintiffs refused, and another purchaser ultimately bought the Property
in an all-cash transaction.14
8 Compl. ¶ 8. 9 Defs.’ Opening Br. at 4, Ex. A at 8. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Defs.’ Opening Br. at 5, Ex. A at 13. 13 Id., Ex. A at 13-14. 14 Id., Ex. A at 16.
3 6. On June 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants
alleging racial discrimination in violation of Delaware’s Fair Housing Act (“FHA”)
in Count I and a breach of fiduciary duty in Count II. The complaint sought
compensation for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as well as attorneys’ fees. On
August 18, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim as to Count I and lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to Count II. In response
to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs conceded Count I should be dismissed.
The parties fully briefed the motion, and the Court took the motion under
advisement.
ANALYSIS
Count I – Racial Discrimination
1. Plaintiffs conceded the Court should dismiss Count I, which alleged
Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of race in violation of the
FHA. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged Defendant Miller listed the property for
sale “as-is” and without inspections and showings due to the presence of tenants.15
According to Plaintiffs, once Defendants learned that Plaintiffs were the current
tenants, and black, they added additional requirements that Plaintiffs had to meet in
order for the Seller to consider their offer.16 Plaintiffs averred Defendants added a
15 Compl. ¶ 7. 16 Id. ¶ 10.
4 walk-through that was not required before Defendants learned Plaintiffs were the
current tenants.17 Plaintiffs maintained that these actions were taken in violation of
6 Del. C. § 4603, which prohibits discrimination against any person regarding the
“terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.”18
2. Defendants moved to dismiss Count I on the basis that it failed to state
a claim under the Delaware Fair Housing Act.19 In their reply to Defendants’ motion
to dismiss, Plaintiffs conceded dismissal as to Count I.20 Plaintiffs explained they
were “so surprised and distraught when [Defendant] Miller sold the [P]roperty to
another buyer for less than the listed purchase price,. . . [Plaintiffs] assumed the
buyer was not an individual of color.”21 Plaintiffs did not offer any further argument
as to Count I. Count I therefore is dismissed with prejudice.
Count II – Breach of Fiduciary Duty
3. On a motion to dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(1),
dismissal is appropriate if the record shows that the court lacks jurisdiction over the
claim.22 Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction.23 “To prevail on a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a movant need only show that the Court
17 Id. 18 Id. ¶ 18. 19 Defs.’ Opening Br. at 7. 20 Pls.’ Res. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 9. 21 Id. 22 Geo-Tech. Assocs., Inc. v. Cap. Station Dover, LLC, 2020 WL 2557139, at *2 (Del. Super. May 15, 2020). 23 Appriva S'holder Litig. Co., LLC v. Ev3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275, 1284 n.14 (Del. 2007).
5 lacks jurisdiction.”24 Delaware law is well-established that this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over fiduciary duty claims.25 A breach of fiduciary duty claim “is
an equitable cause of action and the [Delaware] Court of Chancery has exclusive
jurisdiction over such claims.”26
4. Plaintiffs alleged when Defendants prepared the offer package to send
to the Seller on Plaintiffs’ behalf, Defendants became statutory agents for the
Plaintiffs.27 Plaintiffs averred Defendants provided their information to third parties
without Plaintiffs’ knowledge, discriminated against them on the basis of their skin
color, and failed to convey their purchase offer to the Seller.28 Plaintiffs did not,
however, address subject matter jurisdiction in their response to Defendants’ motion
to dismiss. Because fiduciary duty claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Boatswain v. Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boatswain-v-miller-delsuperct-2023.