Title: Wilson v. Trader

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID L. WILSON and  
 
§ 
CAROLYN D. WILSON, 
 
§ 
§ 
Defendants Below, § No. 148, 2002 
Appellants,  
 
§ 
§ Court Below: Superior Court  
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ of the State of Delaware in and 
§ for Sussex County 
KATHLEEN S. TRADER,  
 
§ C. A. No. 01A-06-002 
§ 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 9, 2002 
Decided: 
August 15, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it 
appears that: 
(1) 
This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision which, in turn, affirmed 
a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, in a debt action.  Appellants, David L. 
Wilson and Carolyn D. Wilson, contend that both the trial court, and the Superior 
Court on review, erred as a matter of law in rejecting appellants’ claims of accord and 
satisfaction and guaranty of the debt of another. 
 
 
 
 
2 
(2) 
Central to the dispute between the parties is the determination of whether 
the appellee, Kathleen S. Trader, orally agreed to act as a guarantor of the debt her 
husband owed to the appellants.  The Court of Common Pleas, after a bench trial in 
which conflicting testimony was presented on that issue, determined, as a matter of fact, 
that appellee made “no guarantee to be responsible for Gary Trader’s debt.”  That 
factual finding was binding in the Superior Court, and on this Court upon further 
review, unless clearly erroneous or not the product of a logical and deductive process.  
Marciano v. Nakash, 535 A.2d 400, 405 (Del. 1987).  Given that exacting standard of 
review, there was no basis for the Superior Court, and presently for this Court to 
reverse the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.  Moreover, in light of the factual 
findings of the Court of Common Pleas, the legal standards of guaranty and accord and 
satisfaction find no application.  Accordingly, it is unnecessary for this Court to review 
the rulings of law made by the Superior Court and we specifically decline to do so. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be, and the same hereby is, 
AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
   Justice