McMillan v. Benchmark Builders

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: N24C-09-181 CEB
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARY ANNIE MCMILLAN, ) a/k/a CELESTIAL GOD OF ) THE UNIVERSE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N24C-09-181 CEB ) BENCHMARK BUILDERS, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: March 12, 2025 Decided: May 6, 2025

ORDER

1. Mary Annie McMillan, a/k/a Celestial God of the Universe,

(“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit claiming she owns a model

showhouse located at 126 Green Forest Dr., Middletown, Delaware, 19709

(“Property”), in the Estates of Rothwell a community under construction by

Benchmark Builders (“Defendant”). Plaintiff’s Complaint sought to “reclaim my

house for personal use.” 1

2. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendant attached

1) a deed to the Property 2 and 2) a screenshot of the search results for a parcel search

1 D.I. 1 Compl. at 2 (Sept. 23, 2024), Trans. ID 74564612 [hereinafter Compl.]. 2 D.I. 8 Ex. A to Def. Benchmark Builders’ Mot. to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer (Oct. 16, 2024), Trans. ID 74774749. on the New Castle County’s property records website.3 These documents were

matters outside the four corners of the Complaint. 4 The Court decided to consider

the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and invited Plaintiff to

respond to Defendant’s pleading and exhibits. 5

3. In response, Plaintiff asserts that: “I must remind the Court that I God

do hold title to the United States of America which this group is after and [has] been

after for over 100 years.”6 By way of documentation of her ownership, Plaintiff

alleges, “The Deed is on a leather skin at the United States White House with my

name.”7

4. Pro se pleadings are “judged by a less stringent standard than a pleading

or document filed by an attorney.”8 But courts cannot “sacrifice the orderly and

efficient administration of justice or impair the substantive rights of represented

3 D.I. 8 Ex. B to Def. Benchmark Builders’ Mot. to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer (Oct. 16, 2024), Trans. ID 74774749. 4 In re Gen. Motors (Hughes) S'holder Litig., 897 A.2d 162, 168 (Del. 2006) (citing Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075, 1082 (Del. 2001)) (“complaint generally defines the universe of facts that the trial court may consider in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”). 5 D.I. 15 Br. Letter (Jan. 22, 2025), Trans. ID 75486291. 6 D.I. 17 Pl. Answer to Def.’s Answer at 2 (Mar. 12, 2025), Trans. ID 75824431. 7 D.I. 11 Pl.’s Answer to Mot. to Dismiss at 2 (Oct. 29, 2024), Trans. ID 74896494. 8 State v. McDougal, 2018 WL 2970770, at *1 n.2 (Del. Super. June 11, 2018), aff'd, 210 A.3d 146 (Del. 2019) (quoting Johnson v. State, 442 A.2d 1362, 1364 (Del. 1982)) (cleaned up). 2 parties to save their claims when their claims plainly have no merit.” 9 As a result,

there is “no different set of rules for pro se plaintiffs.” 10

5. Plaintiff labeled her admittedly unclear and handwritten Complaint as

one for “debt breach of contract.”11 But Courts “must look beyond the ‘labeling’ of

the claim and examine its substance to determine the true nature of the claim.”12

When so examined, the Court sees that Plaintiff’s claim is for ejectment, not breach

of contract. 13

6. For a claim of ejectment, a plaintiff must show by a preponderance of

the evidence that it is 1) out of possession of the property; and 2) has a present right

to possess the property. 14 A plaintiff “must recover upon the strength of her own

9 Mikkilineni v. PayPal, Inc., 2021 WL 2763903, at *5 (Del. Super. July 1, 2021) (quoting Damiani v. Gill, 2015 WL 4351507, at *1 (Del. July 14, 2015); Alston v. State, 2002 WL 184247, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 28, 2002)) (cleaned up). 10 Eley v. PNC Bank Branch of Lewes De., 2023 WL 4237274, at *1 (Del. Super. June 23, 2023) (quoting Bradford v. Beebe Med. Ctr., 2020 WL 3058151 (Del. Super. June 9, 2020)). 11 Compl. at 1. 12 Van Lake v. Sorin CRM USA, Inc., 2013 WL 1087583, at *11 (Del. Super. Feb. 15, 2013) (citing Radius Servs., LLC v. Jack Corrozi Const., Inc., 2009 WL 3273509, at *3 n.10 (Del. Super. Sept. 30, 2009)). 13 Ejectment is an action at law within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. Nelson v. Russo, 844 A.2d 301, 302 (Del. 2004) (citing 10 Del. C. § 6701) (“The claim alleged in the complaint purports to be one for ejectment, which is an action at law.”); see also Humes v. Charles H. W. Farms, Inc., 950 A.2d 661, 665 (Del. Super. 2007) (citing Humes v. Charles H. West Farms, Inc., 2006 WL 337038, *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 18, 2006)) (“An ejectment action is within the common law jurisdiction of the Superior Court.”). 14 Truist Bank v. Elad, 2023 WL 7276648, at *2 (Del. Super. Nov. 3, 2023) (quoting Taylor v. Vanhorn, 2023 WL 3946342, at *2 (Del. Super. June 9, 2023)). 3 title.” 15 In an ejectment proceeding, evidence of ownership includes “recorded

deeds, the sale agreements, and the foreclosure judgment.” 16

7. First, there is no dispute that Plaintiff is out of possession of the

property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has possession of the Property.17 The

Complaint notes, “Currently the house is in model showroom stages and has to be

changes [sic] to living occupancy stages.”18 Defendant also contends the Property is

a “model home which prospective homebuyers interested in Benchmark’s

development Estates at Rothwell may tour.” 19

8. Second, there is also no dispute that Defendant owns the Property.

Plaintiff makes numerous unsubstantiated claims to ownership of the Property, but

Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support her claim or rebut the land and title

records submitted by Defendant. Plaintiff’s exhibit – a letter to the Federal Bureau

of Investigation – is not probative on the issue of whether she owns the Property.20

15 Dickerson v. Simpson, 2001 WL 884153, at *1 (Del. Super. July 10, 2001), aff'd, 792 A.2d 188 (Del. 2002) (citing Addy v. Short, 81 A.2d 300, 302 (Del. Super. 1951), rev'd on other grounds, 89 A.2d 136 (1952)). 16 Stella v. Roberts, 2019 WL 5207915, at *3 (Del. Super. Oct. 15, 2019). 17 Compl. at 2. 18 Id. 19 D.I. 8 Def. Benchmark Builders’ Mot. to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer at 3 (Oct. 16, 2024), Trans. ID 74774749 20 D.I. 12 Ex. A to Pl.’s Answer to Mot. to Dismiss (Oct. 29, 2024), Trans. ID 74896494. See Stella, 2019 WL 5207915 at *3. 4 The deed shows that Defendant acquired the Property in 2016, and the parcel search

shows that Defendant is the current owner of the Property.

9. For the reasons above, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Charles E. Butler Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge