La Marr Gunn v. Christine Blackmon

• Court: Delaware Court of Common Pleas
• Decided: February 6, 2014
• Docket: CPU5-13-000866
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CON|N‘|ON PLEAS

FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE KENT county couRTHousE oovER, oELAwARr-;199o1 PHoNE: (302; 735-3900

CHARLES W. WELCH, |||

JUDGE February 6, 2014

Adarn M. Perza, Esq. La Mar Gunn

Lynn, l\/lay & Perza, P.A. 2 Old North Road, #502 34 'l`he Green Dover, DE 19934 Dover, DE 19901 Pro se Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant

RE: La Mar Gunn v. Christine Blackmon C.A. No.: CPU5-13-000866

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss

Dear Mr. Perza and Mr. Gunn,

This matter involves an appeal from the Justice of the Peace Court filed by Appellant/Piaintiff Below, La Mar Gunn. Appeliee/Defendant Below, Christine Biacl

Procedurally, Mr. Gunn’s motions are not ripe for the Court’s consideration and are denied Therefore, on january IO, 2014, the Court heard facts and argument limited to Ms. Blackmon’s motion to dismiss and reserved decision 'l`his correspondence constitutes the Court’s decision denying Ms. Blackmon’s motion to dismiss in part and granting it in part.

FAC'I`S

Prior to the current dispute, Mr. Gunn and Ms. Biackmon were parties to two civil actions in the justice of the Peace Court involving Ms. Blackmon’s lease to Mr. Gunn of a residence

February 6, 2014 Page 2

located in Dover, Delaware (°‘the property"). "l`lie following is a brief suinmary of the coniplex procedural history of this case.

On july 23, 20]2, Mr. Gunn filed a complaint in the justice of the Peace Court alleging negligence on the part of his landlord, Ms. Blackrnon.l Mr. Gunn stated he suffered damages as a result of l\/ls. Blackmon’s failure to cure the accumulation of black mold in the property.

On Atigiist l, 2012, l\/ls. Blacl

()n Septenibei' 7, 2012, the justice of the Peace Court heard Ms. Blackmon’s summary possession suit.3 'l`he justice of the Peace Court issued l\/ls. Blackmon a writ of possession to the property in a stipulated judgment ("September 761 Stipulated judgmeiit") which was executed by both l\/lr. Gunn and Ms. Blackmon. The justice of the Peace Court reserved the issue of damages to be heard during l\/lr. Gunn’s negligence suit against Ms. Blackmon on September l l, 2012.

On Septeinber ll, 2012, the justice of the Peace Court heard l\/[r. Gunn’s negligence suit against l\/ls. Biacl

On May 29, 2013, Mr. Gunn filed the present cause of action in the justice of the Peace Court against Ms. Blacl<;nion for her failure to return his security deposit and failure to repay unpaid third party expenses related to the property." Ms. Biackmon filed an answer denying all liability and a motion to dismiss. The justice of the Peace Court issued an order granting Ms. Blackmon’s motion to dismiss following a hearing The court held that the Septernbei‘ l l“‘ Stipulated judgment entered into by l\/lr. Gunn and l\/ls. Blackmon barred l\/ir. Gunn from pursuing further cause of action against Ms. Blackmon.

‘11>16-12~003335. 2 JP16-i2-004059.

3 A default judgment was ordered against i\/is. Galarza arising from her failure to appear at the hearing.

4 11>16_13-003016.

Febriiary 6, 2014 Page 3

l\/lr. Gunn appealed the justice of the Peace Court’s dismissal of his action against l\/ls.

Blacknion to this Court. l\/Ir. Gunn requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor in the arnount of $4,200, plus interest. i\/ls. Blackmon filed the present motion to disrniss, pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule l2(b)(6). Ms. Blackinon contends that Mr. Gunn ls estopped from bringing any cause of action against her pursuant to the September ll“‘ Stipulated judgment entered at the justice of the Peace Court. Mr. Gunn opposes l\/Is. Blackmon’s motion to dismiss. He asserts that the September l l"’ Stipulated judgment is unrelated to Ms. Blacl

DISCUSSION

An appeal from a final judgment is reviewed by this Court de novo. Davia'son v. Robbins, 2000 WL 33958583, at *12 (Del. Com. Pl. july 25, 2000) (stating when a_,r`udgrnenl is appealed "the entire cause of action from the trial court" is retried.)', see Cz`l'j) of Wz'lmz'rzgton v. I?Ianzer, 2013 WL 4829585, at *5 (Del. Com. Pl. l`\/lay 22, 2013) (stating "[t]he lioldiiig ofNej) is lirnited to an appeal of a denial ofa motion (or application) to vacate.").

In considering motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule l2(b)(6), "the Court must accept every well~pleaded allegation as true and draw all reasonable iriterences in the non-movant's favor." Walt'on v. D@Shie!ds, 2013 WL 2325301, at *l (Del. Super. May 23, 2013). "The Court niust deny the l2(b)(6) inotion if ‘ plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof."’ fci (citing .S`peace v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978)).

Delaware’s Residential Laridlord-Tenaiit Code obligates a landlord to return either the full security deposit or an itemized list of damages and estimated cost of repair "[w]ithin 20 days after the le.rriiinolz`on or expz`rcriz'o)i of any rental agreement." DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 25, § 5514(1'] (ernphasis added). "l~`ailure to reinit the security deposit or the difference between the security deposit and the amount set forth in the list of damages within 20 days from the expiration or termination Qfthe rental agreemeal' shall entitle the tenant to double the amount wrongfully withheld." DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 25, § 55l4(g)(l) (ernphasis added).

ln the present case, l\/ls. Blackmon contends that l\/lr. Gunn waived his right to return of

the security deposit when he signed the September l l‘h Stipulated judgment "l`he Court disagrees The Septeinber ll"‘ Stipulated judgment stated Mr. Gunn "waives and releases any cause of action between himseif, personal and real, and l\/Is. Blackmon." (emphasis added). l\/lr. Gunn did not waive his right to bring a claim for the return of his security deposit. l\/lr. Gunn only waived and released any currently accrued cause ofaclion between himself and Mr. Blacl

l~"`ebrtiary 6, 2014 Page 4

Pursuant to title 25, section 5715 of the Delaware Code, if a landlord brings a successful action against a tenant for sumniary possession, the relationship between the landlord and tenant is terminated upon the court’s issuance of a writ of possession. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 25 , § 571 5. “'l"he issuance of a writ of possession for the removal cfa tenant cancels the agreement under which the person reinoved held the preinises and annuls the relationship of the landlord and tenant." I)EL. CODE. ANN. tit. 25, § 57l5(d).

The justice of the Peace Court awarded l\/Is. Blacl

CONCLUSION

Mr. Gunn did not release his cause of action against i\/ls. Blacl

IT IS SO ORDERED

Siiicerely,

rs andreas/l ~/t~a¢~i>£

Charles W. Welch, III

CWW: mck