1IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
) ) SININA TALLEY-SIDERS, ) ) Defendant-Below ) Appellant ) C.A. No. N18A-04-005 CLS ) v. ) CASE BELOW: ) CPU4-16-000219 JACK & GEORGIA MAYHORN, ) ) Plaintiffs-Below ) Appellees. )
Date Submitted: June 19, 2018 Date Decided: October 17, 2018
Upon Consideration of Appellant’s Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. AFFIRMED
Sinina Talley-Siders, PO Box 1402, Bear, Delaware 19701. Pro Se Appellant.
Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esquire, Donald L. Gouge, Jr., LLC, 800 North King Street, Suite 303, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. Attorney for Appellees.
Scott, J.
1 OPINION
This is an appeal from the decision of Court of Common Pleas. Jack and
Georgia Mayhorn (Sellers) initiated litigation in the Court of Common Pleas against
Sinina Talley-Siders (Buyer) for a breach of contract dispute arising from the sale of
the Mayhorn’s home. Talley-Siders proceeding pro se framed her defense as a
counterclaim for fraud. Talley-Siders now appeals. For the following reasons the
Court of Common Pleas decision will be affirmed.
The Court’s Decision
Following a bench trial in August 2017, the Court entered judgment in favor
of Sellers against Buyer in a September 5, 2017 decision. The Court determined
Buyer breached the Sales Agreement contract and was therefore liable for damages
arising from the breach. Even though Buyer offered testimony related to the number
and construction of bathrooms in the home, the Court determined Buyer did not
move forward with the purchase because of issues with the sump pump.
As to Buyer’s fraud claim the Court determined neither the Sellers nor their
agent made a false representation with knowledge of its falsity nor with reckless
indifference to the truth. Additionally, the Court determined Buyer failed to sustain
her burden of showing Sellers intended to induce Buyer into action. The Court
awarded damages in the amount of $17,236.60 plus pre- and post-judgment interest.
2 Parties Assertions
At trial, Defendant alleged that Plaintiffs intentionally misled her when they
listed the property with three full bathrooms. In her answer to the complaint in the
Court of Common Pleas, Buyer asserted claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and bad
faith.
In her appeal, Buyer alleges the Court of Common Pleas based its judgment
on an error of law. Buyer claims the Court failed to analyze the facts of the case in
light of the Buyer Property Protection Act and 6 Del. C. § 2572 related to the seller’s
obligation to disclose material defects. Buyer further alleges the Court failed to
consider relevant building codes in its decision. These arguments are based on
Buyer’s assertion that a bathroom addition in the home was constructed without
proper permits by an unlicensed contractor. Buyer claims the work was in violation
of local building codes and Seller’s failure to disclose the nature of the work in the
Seller’s Disclosure was in violation of the Buyer Protection Act.
Additionally, Buyer claims the Court neglected facts that would have been
beneficial to her defense. Buyer claims the Court neglected testimony by Buyer and
Seller tending to show fraud on the part of Seller. Buyer further contends the Court
misapprehended the facts related to the nature of the earnest money deposit, the date
3 she signed the seller’s disclosure, the information uploaded to a MLS corporation,
and testimony provided by Seller’s real estate agent.
Seller contends that Buyer is attempting to raise new issues on appeal, and the
lower Court’s decision does not contain an error of law. Seller states Buyer failed to
raise the Buyer Property Protection Act and building code violation liability during
trial. Buyer further argues evidence was presented at trial to support these claims.
Standard of Review
Addressing appeals from the Court of Common Pleas, the Superior Court sits
as an intermediate appellate Court.1 As a rule, issues not raised in the trial Court
shall not be heard on appeal.2 The Court's role is to “correct errors of law and to
review the factual findings of the Court below to determine if they are sufficiently
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive
process.”3 Appellate Courts are bound by findings of fact made by the trial Court
that are supported by substantial evidence on the record, and are the product of an
orderly and logically deductive process.4 Superior Court does not sit as a trier of
1 State v. Richards, 1998 WL 732960. 2 Wilmington Tr. Co. v. Conner, 415 A.2d 773, 781 (Del. 1980). 3 Tekstrom, Inc. v. Savla, 2006 WL 2338050, at *4 (Del. Super. 2006), aff'd, 918 A.2d 1171 (Del. 2007). 4 Id. citing, Shahan v. Landing, 643 A.2d 1357 (Del. 1994); Downs v. State, 570 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Del. 1990). 4 fact with authority to weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, and
make its own factual findings and conclusions.5 Errors of law are reviewed de novo.6
Errors of law include “errors in formulating or applying legal precepts.”7
Discussion
Buyer claims the Court of Common Pleas erred as a matter of law by failing
to analyze the facts of the case in light of the Buyer Property Protection Act. Seller
contends this issue was not expressly raised in the Court of Common Pleas, and
therefore this Court cannot consider this argument on appeal.
The Court did not address the Buyer Protection Act in its opinion, because
Buyer did not raise Violations of the Act at trial, and therefore Buyer cannot raise
that issue here. The Court’s opinion was based on Seller’s claim for breach of
contract, and Buyer’s claims for fraud, misrepresentation and bad faith.
The Sellers Disclosure of real property condition becomes part of the purchase
agreement between the parties.8 As such, Violations of the Act, including issues
with the seller’s disclosure, are treated by Delaware Courts as actions for breach of
5 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965). 6 Downs v. State, 570 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Del. 1990). 7 Id. 8 6 Del. C. § 2573. 5 contract.9 The Court’s opinion discussed elements of fraud and breach of contract,
and found the facts in evidence presented at trial did not justify Buyer’s non-
performance of her obligations, and therefore she was the first to materially breach
the contract.10
The Court explained that a party claiming fraud must prove they were
intentionally misled. If that party cannot show they were intentionally misled , then
their non-performance under the contract is not excused, and such non-performance
is a material breach of the contract.11 The Court further explained breach is deemed
material if it concerns the “root or essence of the agreement between the parties, or
[is] one which touches the fundamental purpose of the contract and defeats the object
of the parties in entering into the contract.”12 This is in harmony with Delaware
precedent “that a slight breach by one party, while giving rise to an action for
damages, will not necessarily terminate the obligations of the injured party to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
) ) SININA TALLEY-SIDERS, ) ) Defendant-Below ) Appellant ) C.A. No. N18A-04-005 CLS ) v. ) CASE BELOW: ) CPU4-16-000219 JACK & GEORGIA MAYHORN, ) ) Plaintiffs-Below ) Appellees. )
Date Submitted: June 19, 2018 Date Decided: October 17, 2018
Upon Consideration of Appellant’s Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. AFFIRMED
Sinina Talley-Siders, PO Box 1402, Bear, Delaware 19701. Pro Se Appellant.
Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esquire, Donald L. Gouge, Jr., LLC, 800 North King Street, Suite 303, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. Attorney for Appellees.
Scott, J.
1 OPINION
This is an appeal from the decision of Court of Common Pleas. Jack and
Georgia Mayhorn (Sellers) initiated litigation in the Court of Common Pleas against
Sinina Talley-Siders (Buyer) for a breach of contract dispute arising from the sale of
the Mayhorn’s home. Talley-Siders proceeding pro se framed her defense as a
counterclaim for fraud. Talley-Siders now appeals. For the following reasons the
Court of Common Pleas decision will be affirmed.
The Court’s Decision
Following a bench trial in August 2017, the Court entered judgment in favor
of Sellers against Buyer in a September 5, 2017 decision. The Court determined
Buyer breached the Sales Agreement contract and was therefore liable for damages
arising from the breach. Even though Buyer offered testimony related to the number
and construction of bathrooms in the home, the Court determined Buyer did not
move forward with the purchase because of issues with the sump pump.
As to Buyer’s fraud claim the Court determined neither the Sellers nor their
agent made a false representation with knowledge of its falsity nor with reckless
indifference to the truth. Additionally, the Court determined Buyer failed to sustain
her burden of showing Sellers intended to induce Buyer into action. The Court
awarded damages in the amount of $17,236.60 plus pre- and post-judgment interest.
2 Parties Assertions
At trial, Defendant alleged that Plaintiffs intentionally misled her when they
listed the property with three full bathrooms. In her answer to the complaint in the
Court of Common Pleas, Buyer asserted claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and bad
faith.
In her appeal, Buyer alleges the Court of Common Pleas based its judgment
on an error of law. Buyer claims the Court failed to analyze the facts of the case in
light of the Buyer Property Protection Act and 6 Del. C. § 2572 related to the seller’s
obligation to disclose material defects. Buyer further alleges the Court failed to
consider relevant building codes in its decision. These arguments are based on
Buyer’s assertion that a bathroom addition in the home was constructed without
proper permits by an unlicensed contractor. Buyer claims the work was in violation
of local building codes and Seller’s failure to disclose the nature of the work in the
Seller’s Disclosure was in violation of the Buyer Protection Act.
Additionally, Buyer claims the Court neglected facts that would have been
beneficial to her defense. Buyer claims the Court neglected testimony by Buyer and
Seller tending to show fraud on the part of Seller. Buyer further contends the Court
misapprehended the facts related to the nature of the earnest money deposit, the date
3 she signed the seller’s disclosure, the information uploaded to a MLS corporation,
and testimony provided by Seller’s real estate agent.
Seller contends that Buyer is attempting to raise new issues on appeal, and the
lower Court’s decision does not contain an error of law. Seller states Buyer failed to
raise the Buyer Property Protection Act and building code violation liability during
trial. Buyer further argues evidence was presented at trial to support these claims.
Standard of Review
Addressing appeals from the Court of Common Pleas, the Superior Court sits
as an intermediate appellate Court.1 As a rule, issues not raised in the trial Court
shall not be heard on appeal.2 The Court's role is to “correct errors of law and to
review the factual findings of the Court below to determine if they are sufficiently
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive
process.”3 Appellate Courts are bound by findings of fact made by the trial Court
that are supported by substantial evidence on the record, and are the product of an
orderly and logically deductive process.4 Superior Court does not sit as a trier of
1 State v. Richards, 1998 WL 732960. 2 Wilmington Tr. Co. v. Conner, 415 A.2d 773, 781 (Del. 1980). 3 Tekstrom, Inc. v. Savla, 2006 WL 2338050, at *4 (Del. Super. 2006), aff'd, 918 A.2d 1171 (Del. 2007). 4 Id. citing, Shahan v. Landing, 643 A.2d 1357 (Del. 1994); Downs v. State, 570 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Del. 1990). 4 fact with authority to weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, and
make its own factual findings and conclusions.5 Errors of law are reviewed de novo.6
Errors of law include “errors in formulating or applying legal precepts.”7
Discussion
Buyer claims the Court of Common Pleas erred as a matter of law by failing
to analyze the facts of the case in light of the Buyer Property Protection Act. Seller
contends this issue was not expressly raised in the Court of Common Pleas, and
therefore this Court cannot consider this argument on appeal.
The Court did not address the Buyer Protection Act in its opinion, because
Buyer did not raise Violations of the Act at trial, and therefore Buyer cannot raise
that issue here. The Court’s opinion was based on Seller’s claim for breach of
contract, and Buyer’s claims for fraud, misrepresentation and bad faith.
The Sellers Disclosure of real property condition becomes part of the purchase
agreement between the parties.8 As such, Violations of the Act, including issues
with the seller’s disclosure, are treated by Delaware Courts as actions for breach of
5 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965). 6 Downs v. State, 570 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Del. 1990). 7 Id. 8 6 Del. C. § 2573. 5 contract.9 The Court’s opinion discussed elements of fraud and breach of contract,
and found the facts in evidence presented at trial did not justify Buyer’s non-
performance of her obligations, and therefore she was the first to materially breach
the contract.10
The Court explained that a party claiming fraud must prove they were
intentionally misled. If that party cannot show they were intentionally misled , then
their non-performance under the contract is not excused, and such non-performance
is a material breach of the contract.11 The Court further explained breach is deemed
material if it concerns the “root or essence of the agreement between the parties, or
[is] one which touches the fundamental purpose of the contract and defeats the object
of the parties in entering into the contract.”12 This is in harmony with Delaware
precedent “that a slight breach by one party, while giving rise to an action for
damages, will not necessarily terminate the obligations of the injured party to
perform under the contract.”13
9 See; McCoy v. Cox, 2007 WL 1677536 (Del. Super. 2007), Iacono v. Barici, 2006 WL 3844208 (Del. Super. 2006). 10 Mayhorn, at *3. 11 Mayhorn, at *3. 12 Mayhorn v. Talley-Siders, 2017 WL 4122580, at *3 (Del.Com.Pl. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). 13 E. Elec. & Heating, Inc. v. Pike Creek Prof'l Ctr., 1987 WL 9610, at *4 (Del. Super. 1987), aff'd, 540 A.2d 1088 (Del. 1988). 6 The Court’s decision was that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial
to show Buyer did not proceed with the sale because of issues with the sump pump
in the home.14 The Court noted this was the only explanation provided for non-
performance at the time of closing, and that such non-performance was unjustified.15
Buyers belief that one of the bathrooms may have been installed by an unlicensed
contractor was not offered as a reason for breach at the time.
Buyer next argues the Court erred as a matter of law in failing to consider
relevant building codes in its decision. Buyer states the addition of the bathroom
was built in violation of the relevant building codes, without proper permits, by an
unlicensed contractor. As with the Buyer Protection Act, Buyer did not raise an
issue based on these violations, and they will not be considered on appeal, except,
as a matter of law. The building code does not create a private right of action for
violations of the code. Enforcement of the New Castle County Building Code is by
either civil or criminal proceedings.16 Civil enforcement of violations are to be
brought by the County Attorney, not individuals.17
Finally, Buyer claims the Court of Common Pleas misapprehended the
testimony presented at trial. Buyer claims the Court neglected testimony by Buyer
14 Mayhorn, at *3. 15 Id. 16 See; New Castle County Code of Ordinances, Ch. 6 – Building Code Art. 12. 17 Id. 7 and Seller tending to show fraud on the part of Seller. Buyer insists testimony
offered by her and Seller’s agent tended to show the information presented online
was incorrect and amounted to a false representation by Sellers and their agent. If
contradictory evidence is presented at trial, the Court of Common Pleas as finder of
fact is free to accept or reject the testimony offered, and to make one harmonious
story from it all. On appeal, this Court is bound by the findings of fact as determined
by the Court of Common Pleas.
Conclusion
At trial, the Court reviewed the evidence presented by both parties looking at
the totality of the circumstances surrounding the Buyer's actions. 18 The Court
determined Buyer was in breach of the Sales Agreement, and therefore liable for
damages.
It was determined at trial the reason Buyer chose not to move forward to
closing was because of issues with the sump pump. The Court found neither Sellers
nor their agent knowingly made false representations about the home, nor were any
representations made with reckless indifference to the truth. Furthermore, the Court
determined even if Buyer decided not to purchase the Property because she was
misled regarding the bathrooms in the home, she failed to prove Sellers intentionally
18 Mayhorn, at *4. 8 misled her, and therefore could not sustain a claim of fraud that would excuse her
non-performance.
Under the circumstances presented, there is substantial evidence to support
the Court of Common Pleas decision. The Court of Common Pleas decision is free
from errors of law. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas must be
affirmed.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Calvin L. Scott Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.