Title: Allen v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JARED ALLEN,
 
§
§
No. 543, 2011
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
Court Below:  Family Court
v.
§
of the State of Delaware,
§
in and for New Castle County
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Case No. 1008026764
Plaintiff Below, 
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted:  February 22, 2012
Decided:  May 10, 2012
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 10th day of May, 2012, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
appears to the Court that:
1) Jared Allen1 appeals the Family Court’s Restitution Sentencing Order and
its denial of his motion for reconsideration.  He was adjudicated delinquent on one
count of reckless burning and one count of criminal trespass.  After a restitution
hearing, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $24,508.25.  Allen
contends that the trial court erred in finding that:  1) the victim came before the court
1This Court sua sponte assigned Appellant a pseudonym by Order dated October 13, 2011, pursuant
to Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).
with “clean hands;” and 2) a juvenile’s ability to pay restitution should not be
considered in deciding an appropriate amount of restitution.  We find no merit to
either argument, and affirm.
2) In February 2010, Allen and a friend went to a vacant farmhouse in
Hockessin, Delaware.  While there, Allen lit a torch, but failed to extinguish it.  As
a result, the farmhouse caught fire and suffered significant damage.  Harvey Hanna
& Associates is the real estate developer that owned the property.  Hanna was told by
a former State Fire Marshall officer, and an engineer, that the farmhouse had to be
demolished because it was an imminent public safety hazard.
3) Demolition began on March 1, 2010.  An enforcement officer from the New
Castle County Land Use Department noticed the demolition and determined that
Hanna did not have a demolition permit.  On March 2nd a Stop Work Order was
posted on the farmhouse door, but demolition continued until it was completed on
March 3rd.  After a Rule to Show Cause hearing, Hanna was fined $2,300 for working
without a valid permit and violating a Stop Work Order.
4) Allen was adjudicated delinquent on October 12, 2010.  In August 2011, the
Family Court held a restitution hearing.  The parties stipulated that Hanna incurred
the following costs:  a) $21,003 for demolition; b) $2,505 for asbestos removal;
c) $5,000 reward payment; d) $1,662 for employee expenses; and e) $473 for
2
attorneys’ fees.  Hanna sought the full $30,642, but the court ordered $24,5008.25. 
The trial court excluded Hanna’s employee expenses, attorneys’ fees, and $4000 of
the reward money.
5) At the restitution hearing, and again on appeal, Allen argues that Hanna’s
demolition costs should not be included in a restitution order because Hanna failed
to get a demolition permit, and, therefore, had “unclean hands.”  The clean hands
doctrine allows a court of equity to refuse relief to a party whose inequitable conduct
relates directly to the claim presented.2  But Hanna’s conduct had nothing to do with
the farmhouse burning down.  After the fire, Hanna had no choice but to demolish the
building.  The fact that Hanna failed to obtain a demolition permit has no bearing on
the cost of demolition or the fact that demolition was required by Allen’s conduct. 
In short, the unclean hands doctrine has no application on these facts.
6) Allen also argues that the trial court failed to consider his ability to generate
income and his ability to pay restitution.  His argument is factually flawed.  The trial
court recognized that Allen was young and that he was being ordered to pay a lot of
money.  But, the court also noted that the fact that a person is young should not mean
that the victim has to pay for the juvenile’s destructive conduct.  After considering
both sides of the problem, the court decided to award restitution in an amount that
2Sloan v. Segal, 2010 WL 2169496 (Del. Supr.).
3
was less than Hanna’s stipulated costs.  We find no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court
be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice
 
4