Zhang v. Jack Lingo, Inc.

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: August 13, 2024
• Docket: S24A-02-002 MHC
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

YIMAO ZHANG, ) ) Appellant, ) v. ) C.A. No. S24A-02-002 MHC ) JACK LINGO INC. REALTOR ) ) ) ) ) Appellee. )

ORDER

Submitted: July 15, 2024 Decided: August 13, 2024

Upon Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, AFFIRMED.

Yimao Zhang, Petitioner Pro Se.

David C. Hutt, Esquire, R. Eric Hacker, Esquire, Michelle G Bounds, Esquire, MORRIS JAMES LLP, 107 W. Market Street, P.O. Box 690, Georgetown, Delaware, 19947, Attorneys for Appellee Jack Lingo Inc. Realtor.

CONNER, J. This thirteenth day of August 2024, upon consideration of the parties’

briefings and the record before the Court, it appears to the Court that:

1. On November 3, 2018, Yimao Zhang (“Appellant”) entered into an

agreement with Jack Lingo Inc. Realtor (“Lingo”) for the rental and

management of Appellant’s property located in Lewes, Delaware

(“Agreement”).

2. On July 3, 2019, a tenant renting the property complained of issues with

the HVAC unit. Lingo hired John Shomper (“Shomper”) to inspect the

HVAC unit. After two separate attempts to repair the unit Shomper

determined it needed to be replaced. Appellant verbally approved the

replacement of the HVAC unit and acknowledged the cost of $4,400.

Lingo hired an HVAC company to replace the unit and billed the

Appellant pursuant to the Agreement.1

3. On October 14, 2019, Lingo filed a debt collection action against

Appellant to recover the cost of the unit and other expenses. Appellant

counterclaimed. On February 28, 2020, the Justice of the Peace Court

issued a judgment of $5,066.78 against Appellant in favor of Lingo

1 For a complete recitation of the facts relevant to this matter the Court refers to Yimao Zhang v. Jack Lingo Inc. Realtor, Del. J.P., C.A. No. JP17-19006342, Comly, J. (Feb.28, 2020). 2 (“2020 JP Judgment”).2 Appellant did not appeal this judgment and it

became final.

4. At some point thereafter Appellant learned that Shomper was not a

licensed HVAC technician. On February 11, 2021, Appellant requested

the Justice of the Peace Court to vacate the February 28, 2020,

judgment by letter.3 Appellant argued that her “discovery” of

Shomper’s licensure status and Lingo’s alleged fraud in concealing it

warrants a vacatur of the 2020 JP Judgment. On July 26, 2021, the

Justice of the Peace Court issued an order denying Appellant’s request

to vacate the 2020 JP Judgment (“2021 JP Denial Order”).4

5. On August 5, 2021, Appellant appealed the 2021 JP Denial Order to the

Court of Common Pleas, once again arguing newly acquired evidence

and fraud on the part of Lingo. On December 11, 2023, the Court of

Common Pleas held a hearing on Appellant’s appeal. On February 8,

2024, the Court of Common Pleas issued an order affirming the 2021

JP Denial (“2024 CCP Order”).5 The Court of Common Pleas reasoned

2 Id. 3 The Justice of the Peace considered these unstyled letters to be motions to vacate judgment under Rule 60 of the Rules of the Court of the Justices of the Peace. 4 Yimao Zhang v. Jack Lingo Inc. Realtor, Del. J.P., C.A. No. JP17-19006342, Comly, J. (Jul. 26, 2021). 5 Yimao Zhang v. Jack Lingo Inc. Realtor, 2024 Del. CCP, C.A. No. CPU6-21-000795, Clark, J. (Feb. 8, 2024). 3 “Shomper’s lack of registration could have been reasonably discovered

prior to the trial and no evidence was presented that would indicate

[Lingo] knowingly made misrepresentations to [Appellant].”6

6. On February 28, 2024, Appellant appealed the 2024 CCP Order to this

Court. In her appeal Appellant claims that she was entitled to a trial de

novo relitigating the 2020 JP Judgment and that the Court of Common

Pleas erred by not granting such review.

7. This Court will affirm a decision of the Court of Common Pleas when

the record indicates that it is the product of an orderly and logical

deductive process and supported by evidence.7 A thorough review of

the record demonstrates that the Court of Common Pleas did not err in

affirming the Justice of the Peace Court’s denial of Appellant’s motion

for relief. Appellant was not entitled to a Court of Common Pleas

review of the 2020 debt collection action in the Justice of Peace Court

because that matter was not timely appealed. As for the Court of

Common Pleas review of the 2021 JP Denial Order, the evidence

Appellant categorizes as “newly discovered” was published publicly on

a state website and could have been easily discovered with due

6 Id. at 4. 7 Rufus v. Ramsey, 2004 WL 838612, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2004). 4 diligence in time for Appellant to have moved for a new trial in the

Justice of the Peace Court. Further, Appellant has yet to provide any

evidence to the Court indicating that Lingo knowingly made

misrepresentations. Appellant failed to file a timely appeal of the 2020

JP Judgment and failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

in her appeal from the 2024 CCP Order affirming the 2021 JP Denial

Order.

8. The record before the Court indicates that the decision of the Court of

Common Pleas is the product of an orderly and logical deductive

process and supported by sufficient evidence. The record further

demonstrates the Court of Common Pleas did not err as a matter of law.

Therefore, I AFFIRM.

/s/ Mark H. Conner Mark H. Conner, Judge

Via File & Serve oc: Prothonotary