Case Title: Kelley v. Smith

Citation: 

Docket Number: 318, 2000

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KATHLEEN KELLEY,
§
No. 318, 2000
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Court Below—Superior Court
Appellant,
§
of the State of Delaware, in
§
and for New Castle County
v.
§
§
C.A. No. 99C-07-239
A. ARCHIE SMITH, JR.,
§
       
§
Defendant Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: March 27, 2001
Decided:
April 27, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 27th day of April 2001, upon consideration of the briefs of the
parties, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The Appellant, Kathleen Kelley, filed a four-count Complaint in
Superior Court in 1999. Defendant A. Archie Smith answered. Both
parties requested a jury trial.
(2) The Superior Court severed Count 1 of the Complaint, an action
of replevin, with the agreement of the parties in order to accommodate the
2
parties’ need for an expedited resolution of their dispute over rightful
possession of three horses, the property involved in the replevin action.
(3) On May 16, 2000 the Superior Court entered an oral ruling from
the bench and followed it with a written Order on June 13th, 2000.
(4) The Superior Court’s Order on the replevin Count denied
Appellant’s “prayer for replevin” of the three horses, “with prejudice.”
The Order further declared the defendant the “true and lawful owner of the
three horses known as Fred Bear Claw, Piccone and Lily’s Tune,” and
entered the Order pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b).
(5) Kelley appealed the final Order and argues that the Superior
Court erred in formulating or applying legal precepts and that its factual
findings are not supported by the record.
(6) We conclude that the Superior Court’s ruling that the Appellant’s
action for replevin be denied is supported by sufficient facts in the record
and is free from legal error.
(7) We further conclude that, because both the Appellant and the
Appellee requested a jury trial on the remaining Counts of the Complaint
and Counterclaim, the Superior Court erred as a matter of law when it
declared Appellee the “owner” and not merely the person in rightful
3
possession of the horses for the purpose of racing them at the urging of
and to accommodate the parties. The remaining issues, including
ownership, should be determined at a jury trial.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of
Superior Court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART.
The Superior Court is instructed to hold a jury trial on the remaining
Counts and Counterclaim. Jurisdiction is not retained.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele
Justice
oc:
Clerk of the Court
c:
The Honorable Richard R. Cooch
Richard P.S. Hannum, Esquire
Mr. A. Archie Smith, Jr.
Court Distribution List