Larkin v. Linden Green Condominium Association

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 9, 2020
• Docket: 163, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STEPHANIE M. LARKIN, § § Defendant-Counterclaim § No. 163, 2020 Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. 17L-11-116 LINDEN GREEN CONDOMINIUM § ASSOCIATION, § § Plaintiff-Counterclaim § Defendant Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: May 7, 2020 Decided: June 9, 2020

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal and the documents

attached thereto, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant/defendant-counterclaim plaintiff below, Stephanie M.

Larkin, has petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept this

interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court order, dated March 11, 2020, granting

summary judgment in favor of the appellee/plaintiff-counterclaim defendant below,

Linden Green Condominium Association (“the Association”). (2) Larkin owns a condominium unit in Linden Green. She has not paid

the condominium assessments since 2016. In November 2017, the Association

instituted a lien foreclosure proceeding under the Delaware Uniform Common

Interest Ownership Act (“DUCIOA”), 25 Del. C. § 81-101 et seq. The Association

sought an in personam judgment against Larkin and an in rem judgment against her

condominium unit. In her answer and counterclaim, Larkin alleged that the

Association had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for lien

foreclosure and failed to make necessary repairs to her unit.

(3) The Association filed motions for summary judgment on its complaint

and Larkin’s counterclaim. Larkin opposed the motions. After oral argument, the

Superior Court ruled from the bench that Larkin had no valid defenses for her failure

to pay the assessments and that her procedural challenges to the in rem claim were

without merit. The Superior Court granted the Association’s motion for summary

judgment as to the complaint, but denied its motion for summary judgment as to

Larkin’s counterclaim.

(4) Larkin filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal.

Larkin argued that the order resolved two questions of law for the first time in

Delaware. First, whether a condominium association may maintain a Superior Court

lien foreclosure action if it does not obtain an executive board vote in favor of

foreclosure against a specific unit as required by 25 Del. C. § 81-316(m)(1). Second,

2 whether 25 Del. C. § 81-316(j)(1), which provides that a condominium association’s

lien must be foreclosed like a mortgage on real estate, requires an association to

comply with the mortgage foreclosure notice requirements under 10 Del. C. §

5062B. The Association opposed the application. The Superior Court denied the

application. The Superior Court found that the application did not determine a

substantial issue of material importance. As to the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria, the

Superior Court assumed that the interlocutory order contained questions of law

resolved for the first time (Rule 42(b)(iii)(A)) as Larkin argued, but concluded that

was insufficient to warrant interlocutory review when considered in light of the other

criteria. The Superior Court noted that even if Larkin prevailed on the procedural

issues she raised relating to the in rem claim, the in personam judgment would

remain unaffected.

(5) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound

discretion of the Court.1 In the exercise of our discretion and giving due weight to

the Superior Court’s denial of the application for certification, this Court has

concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict

standards for certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b). Exceptional

circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s

1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 3 interlocutory opinion do not exist in this case,2 and the potential benefits of

interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs

caused by an interlocutory appeal.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is

REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice

2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii). 4