Title: Wheeler v. Clerkin

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
AL WHEELER,                       
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
LIAM CLERKIN, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 448, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   C.A. No. 031A-10-004 
                      
 
Submitted: February 18, 2005  
   Decided: April 13, 2005  
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 13th day of April 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Al Wheeler, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s September 10, 2004 order affirming the Court of Common Pleas’ 
judgment against him in the amount of $1,426.00, plus costs.  We find no merit to 
the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
The plaintiff-appellee, Liam Clerkin, filed a breach of contract action 
against Wheeler in the Court of Common Pleas.1  The complaint alleged that, on or 
                                          
 
1 This case was heard de novo in the Court of Common Pleas following trial in the Justice of the 
Peace Court, which resulted in the entry of a money judgment against Wheeler in the amount of 
$1,426.00 plus costs.   
 
 
-2-
about April 30, 2001, Wheeler entered into an oral contract with Clerkin, a 
racetrack veterinarian, for medical services for his two thoroughbred racehorses 
named Heroic Peace and Agree.  At trial, Clerkin testified that, on April 30, 2001, 
a trainer named Julie King introduced Wheeler to Clerkin at Delaware Park 
racetrack, and the parties entered into the agreement.  Clerkin testified that, as 
evidence of the oral contract, Wheeler wrote down his address for billing purposes 
on a racing form and signed his name at the bottom.  This document was admitted 
into evidence at trial.     
 
(3) 
According to Clerkin, he provided veterinary services for Wheeler’s 
two racehorses, including the administration of drugs and daily check-ups, between 
the dates of April 30, 2001 and June 6, 2001.  At trial, billing statements for these 
services were admitted into evidence.  Clerkin testified that he also kept a daily 
diary in which the treatments for the horses were listed, but that the diary was in 
the possession of Julie King and was not available for trial.  Finally, Clerkin 
testified that it is standard practice in the horse racing business for owners to enter 
into oral agreements with veterinarians regarding medical services for their horses. 
 
(4) 
Wheeler testified that he did not authorize Clerkin to administer 
medication to his horses and did not agree with Clerkin’s treatment methods.  He 
testified that, when he learned Clerkin was around the racetrack, he instructed Julie 
 
 
-3-
King not to let Clerkin near his horses.  According to Wheeler, while Clerkin was 
not a “needle jockey,” his methods were “less holistic” than he liked.  Moreover, 
he said, Julie King had a drug problem and he would not have trusted her advice 
regarding a veterinarian for his horses.  Wheeler testified that Clerkin’s billing 
statements were inaccurate and, as an example, showed where Heroic Peace had 
been given pre-race medication on a date when he didn’t race.  In response, 
Clerkin produced a racing program to show that the horse did race on that date.   
 
(5) 
At no time did Wheeler deny that he wrote his name and address on 
the racing form introduced into evidence by Clerkin.  In addition, while Wheeler 
stated that he would not let Clerkin near his horses, he, nevertheless, admitted that 
an injection of Lasix was required before a horse was permitted to run at Delaware 
Park.  It was undisputed that Clerkin gave Wheeler’s horses those mandatory 
injections.       
 
(6) 
At the conclusion of trial, the Court of Common Pleas judge issued 
his decision from the bench.  Based upon the evidence presented, the judge found 
that Wheeler and Clerkin had entered into an oral contract; that Wheeler wrote 
down his name and address on the racing form so that Clerkin would know where 
to send his bills; that Clerkin provided medical services to Wheeler’s horses as 
outlined in his testimony; and that, based upon the billing statements provided by 
 
 
-4-
Clerkin, Wheeler owed Clerkin $1,426.00.  The judge also awarded Clerkin pre- 
and post-judgment interest at the legal rate.    
 
(7) 
Wheeler appealed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas to the 
Superior Court.2  Following its review of the briefs on appeal and the Court of 
Common Pleas record, the Superior Court found that the record evidence 
supported the Court of Common Pleas’ finding that there was an oral contract 
between Wheeler and Clerkin; that Clerkin provided the services contracted for; 
and that Wheeler owed Clerkin $1,426.00.   
 
(8) 
In this appeal, Wheeler claims that the Court of Common Pleas erred: 
a) when it admitted the racing form with his signature into evidence; and b) when it 
found the existence of an oral contract.  Wheeler further claims that the Superior 
Court erred when it affirmed these findings of the Court of Common Pleas.       
 
(9) 
In an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas to the Superior Court, 
the standard of review is whether there is legal error and whether the factual 
findings made by the trial judge are sufficiently supported by the record and are the 
product of an orderly and logical deductive process.3  Findings of the trial court 
that are supported by the record must be accepted by the reviewing court even if, 
                                          
 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 1326 (1999). 
3 Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671, 673 (Del. 1972). 
 
 
-5-
acting independently, it would have reached a contrary conclusion.4  This Court 
applies the same standard of review to the Superior Court’s decision.5 
 
(10) We have reviewed the transcript of the trial in the Court of Common 
Pleas and conclude that the factual findings of the Court of Common Pleas judge, 
including the finding that Wheeler and Clerkin entered into an oral contract, are 
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive 
process.  We also find no error on the part of the Court of Common Pleas in 
considering the signed racing form to be probative of whether an oral contract 
existed and in admitting it into evidence on that basis. 
 
 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
4 Id. 
5 Baker v. Connell, 488 A.2d 1303, 1309 (Del. 1985).