S UP ER I O R CO UR T

of th e

S T AT E O F

D EL AW AR E

Je f f r e y J C l ar k Ke n t C o u n t y Co u r t h o u s e

Ju d g e 3 8 T h e G r e e n

D o v e r

, D E 1 9 9 0 1

T e l e p h o n e ( 3 0 2 ) 7 3 9

- 5 3 3 3

A u g u s t 2, 2016

Rober t J

. Di l l Dav i d W. D i l l

, S r

. 968- A S keeter Neck Road B r i tai n i e K

. D i l l

F r eder i ca, DE 1 9946 4984 Wi l l ow Gr o v e Road

Cam den

- Wy om

i n g

, DE 19934

V ia f ile & Ser ve X

p r es s & U. S. M

ail

Re: Dill v. Dill

K15L

- 02- 003 JJC

Dear M es s r s

. Di l l an d M r s

. Di l l :

A f ter en tr y of def au l t ju dg m en

t i n th i s cas e, th e Cou

r t h el d an i n q

u i s i ti on h ear i n g

to d eter m i n e dam ag es on J u l y 25, 2016. Def en dan t Dav i d Di l l appear ed at th e h ear i n g

to con tes t th e am ou

n t o f dam ag es du e. T h e Cou r t h as con s i der ed th e par

ti es ’ t es ti m

on y

at th e h ear i n g an d th e d ocu m en tar y ev i den ce s u

bm i tted b y P l ai n

ti f f Rober t J

. Di l l

( h er ei n af ter “ P l ai n ti f f ”) an d Def

en dan t Dav i d D i l l

. T aki n g i n

to con s i der ati on th e l aw

an d th e ev i den ce s u

bm i tted at th e h ear i n g

, th e Cou r t f i n d s th at P l ai n

ti f f Rober t Di l l i s

en ti t l ed to $13, 245. 5 1 i n dam ag es du e t o Def en dan ts D av i d D i l l an d h i s wi f

e, B r i tai n i e

Di l l ’ s

, def au l t on th ei r m

or tg ag e. T h i s l etter Or der s ets f or th th e Cou

r t’ s r eas on i n g f

or

th i s deci s i on

.B oth par ti es ag r eed at th e h ear i n g t h at Def en dan t Dav i d D i l l an d D e f

en dan t

B r i tai n i e Di l l ( h er ei n af

t er col l ecti v el y “ Def

en dan ts ”) br each ed th ei r obl i g ati o n to pay

P l ai n ti f f f or h i s por

t io n o f t he a g r eed v al u e of i n h er i ted f am i l y l an d. Def

en dan ts

pu r ch as ed th e l an d f

r om P l ai n ti f f an d th r ee oth er s i bl i n g s

. T h e p ar ti es ag r eed at t

h e

h ear i n g t h at pu r s u an t to th i s con

tr act, Def en dan ts o wed th e P l ai n

ti f f on e- qu ar ter of t h e

total p u r ch as e pr i ce o f

$57, 600 an d accr

u ed i n ter es t

.

T h e par ti es ex ecu ted a docu m en t i den ti f i ed as a m or tg ag e th at i n cl u ded pay

m en t

ter m s an d th e ov er al l pu

r ch as e pr i ce. I n addi ti on t o t he p r i n ci p al am ou n t du e, t h e

ag r eem en t i n cl u ded i n

ter es t at 6% per an

n u m

. I t al s o pr ov i ded th at th e total debt was

to be pay abl e i n 1 80 m

on th l y i n s tal l m en

ts of $ 486. 0 6

, beg i n

n i n g on M ar ch 15, 2006.

T h e con tr act al s o con

tai n ed an accel er ati on cl au s e i n th e ev en t of def au l t. F i n al l y

, t

h e

docu m en t pr o v i ded f

or th e awar d o f cou

n sel f ees i n t h e am o u n t of 5% of th e am ou

n t

du e f o r p r i n ci pal

, i n

ter es t, an d cos ts

. A t t

h e h ear i n g

, P l ai n

ti f f al so s o u g h

t i n ci den tal an d

con s equ en

ti al dam ag es f

o r th e br each

.

S TANDARD

A f ter a d ef au l t ju dg m en

t i s or der ed, an i n qu i s i ti on h ear i n g i s h el d to deter m i n e

th e am o u n t of dam ag es du e. 1 A t an i n qu i s i ti o n he a r i ng, th e Cou r t’ s f i n di n g s on

dam ag es m

u s t be bas ed on a pr epon der an ce of th e ev i den ce. 2 T h e “ sol e f ocu s of

i n qu i s i ti on h ear i n g s i s th e am ou n t of dam ag es owed to t

h e pl ai n t i f f

, wh i ch i s deter

m i n ed

by th e

. . . ju dg e. ” 3 P r epon der an ce of th e ev i den ce m ean s “ th e s i de on wh i ch t h e

1 P atton v. Y

ancey

, 2014 W L 4674600, at *1 ( Del

. Super

. Sept

. 22, 2014)

.

2 Jagger v. Schiavello

, 93 A

. 3d 656, 659 ( Del

. Super

. 2014) ( ci t at i o n o m i t t ed)

.

3 I d.

2g r eater w e ight of th e ev i den ce i s f ou n d. ” 4 A ddi ti on al l y

, th e s tan dar d r em edy

, or

dam ag es

, f

or a br each of con

tr act i s bas ed u

pon th e r eas on abl e ex

pectati on s of t

h e

par t i es

, i n an am ou

n t th at i s equ al to th e l os s i n v al u e of def en dan t ’ s n on p er f or m an ce,

or b r each

. 5 Dam ag es f

or a br e a c h o f con

tr act m u st be pr ov en wi th r eas on abl e

cer t ai n ty

. 6 Reco ve r y i s n o t av ai l abl e to th e ex ten t t h at th e al l eg ed d am ag es ar e

u n cer tai n

, con

ti n g en t, con jectu r al

, or s pecu l ati v e. 7

EVI DENCE P RES ENTED AT TH E H EARI NG

A t th e i n q u i s i t i on h ear i n g

, Rober

t Di l l am en ded h i s or i g i n al cal cu l ati on of th e f u l l

debt am o unt f

r o m $21, 8 72. 70 to $23, 716. 7 6. H e al s o cl ai m ed 5% i n cou n s el f ees

,

wh i ch h e cal cu l ated to be $1, 093. 63. F u r t h er m or e, h e al s o cl ai m ed l os t wag es i n t h e

am ou n t o f $749. 43. P l ai n

ti f f

, h owev er

, di d n ot pr ov i de ev i den ce r eg ar d i n g th e date

of def au l t, ex cept t o s tate th at th e l as t pay m en t Def en d an ts m ade to h i m was s om

eti m e

i n ear l y 2012.

Du r i n g h i s tes ti m

on y

, Def en dan t Dav i d Di l l ackn o wl edg ed th at h e an d h i s wi f e

o wed m on ey to P l ai n

ti f f

. H o wev er

, h e con

tes t ed t h e am ou n t of dam ag es du e

. He

ar g u ed th at th e f

u l l qu ar ter s h ar e of th e m

or tg ag e was n ot du e to P l ai n ti f f

, becau s e h e

h ad m ade a s i g n i f

i can t n u m ber of pay m en ts p r i o r to def

au l ti n g

. Def

en dan t tes ti f i ed th at,

per h i s cal cu l ati o n s

, h e owed P l ai n ti f f $13, 245. 5 1. T o s u

ppor t th i s con ten ti on

, h e

pr ov i ded ch eck stu

bs f or som e o f t h e ch ecks h e h ad wr i tten to Rober t Di l l f or t h e

4 I d.

5 W es t W illow

- B ay C our t, LLC v. R obino- B ay C our t P laz a LLC

, 2009 W L 4 58779, at *4

( Del

. C h

. F eb

. 23, 2009)

.

6 Siga Techs

. , I

nc. v. P har m A thene, I nc.

, 1 32 A

. 3d 1108, 1131 (Del

. 2015)

.

7 I d.

3m

or t g ag e pay m en t s

. A ddi ti o n al l y

, Def

en d an t tes t i f i ed r eg ar di n g a ch eck th at was

ten der ed to Rober

t Dill o n J an

u ar y 13, 2015, th

r ou g h an attor

n ey

, i n t h e am ou n t of

$3, 038. 25. H e as s er

ted th at th e am ou

n t of th e ch eck, $3, 083. 2 5, w ou l d h av e br ou g h t

h i m u p to date on h i s pay

m en ts f or th e m or tg ag e. H owev er

, Rober t D ill r ef u s ed t h e

ch eck becau s e i t was ten der ed as a s ettl em en t th at w ou l d h av e r equ i r ed t h e r el eas e of

s om e u n s peci f i ed p or ti o n of h i s cl ai m

.

DI S CUS S I O N

A t th e i n qu i si ti o n h ear i n g

, th e bu r den of pr oof w as on th e P l ai n ti f f to pr ov e t

h e

dam ag es du e. T o d eter

m i n e th e am ou

n t of an awar d as to dam ag es

, th e Cou r t m u s t

f i r s t d eter m i n e th e date of def

au l t, or br each

, becau se t he t im i ng of t h e br each i s an

i s s u e th at “ h as i m

pl i cati on s f

or v al u ati on an d an

y poten ti al i n ter es t accr

u al

. ” 8 P l ai n

ti f f

tes ti f i ed th at Def

en dan ts d ef au l ted on th e m

or tg ag e s om eti m e i n ear l y 2 012. H owev er

,

h e cou l d of

f er n o ev i den ce of th e date o f def au l t. A ddi ti on al l y

, P l ai n

ti f f di d n ot of

f er

an y ev i d en ce as to h ow m any pay m en ts w er e actu al l y m ade or i n wh at am ou n t. H e

ackn owl edg ed th at h e h ad r ecei v ed s om e p ay m en ts f r om Def en dan ts

, th ou g h h e h ad

n o r ecor ds ( n or was h e abl e to of f er tes t i m on y ) r eg ar d i n g wh at pay

m en ts w er e actu al l y

r ecei v ed an d wh en

. H e m er el y al l eg ed th at $21, 872. 5 0 was s ti l l du e on th e pr i n ci p al

a m ou n t. A l th ou g h th e r

u l es of ev i den ce ar e som ewh at r el ax ed i n an i nq uis i t io n

h ear i n g

, wh en a def

en dan t appear s to con

tes t th e am ou

n t du e, th es e r el ax ed r

u l es d o

n ot alle viate a pl ai n

ti f f f r om h i s or h er obl i g ati o n t o pr o v e dam ag es to a r eas on abl e

cer t ai n ty

.

Def en dan t D a vi d Di l l tes ti f

i ed an d pr ov i ded an ex

h i bi t i n d i cati n g t

h at h e s ti l l

8 W es t W illow

- B ay, LLC

, 2009 W L 458779, at * 4.

4owed $13, 245. 51. T h i s adm i s s i on was t

h e o n l y ev i den ce o f

f er ed at th e h ear i n g

en abl i n g th e deter

m i n ati on of dam ag es to a r eas on abl e cer tai n ty

. A ccor di n g l y

, becau s e

th er e was a br each

, an d Def en dan t ackn owl edg ed th at $13, 245. 5 1 was o wed f or th at

br each

, ju dg m en

t i s i n th e am ou

n t of $ 13, 245. 51, pl

u s pos t ju dg m en

t i n ter es t at t h e

l eg al r ate i s awar ded P l ai n ti f f

.

P l ai n ti f f ’ s r equ es ted cou

n s el f ees i n th e am ou

n t of 5% ar e den i ed

. T h e Cou r t

does n ot awar d th es e f

ees becau s e n o cou

n s el was h i r ed by th e P l ai n ti f f wh o appear ed

pr o s e. F i n al l y

, P l ai n

ti f f ’ s cl ai m f or l os t wag es i n th e am ou n t o f $749. 43 i s n ot

awar ded becau s e P l ai n

ti f f of f er ed i n s u f

f i ci en t ev i den ce t o e s t abl i s h th at t h es e l os t

wag es w er e ei th er i n ci d en tal o r con s equ en

t i al t o th e br each of

con tr act.

F or t h e r eas on s s tated, ju dg m en t is h er eby en

t er ed i n f av or of P l ai n

t i f f Rober t

Di l l ag ai n s t Def

en dan t s Dav i d Di l l an d B r i tai n i e Di l l

, joi n tl y an d s ev er al l y

, i n t

h e

am ou n t o f $13, 2 45. 51, pl

u s c o s t s a nd pos t ju dg m en t i n t er es t at t h e l eg al r ate. T h e

P r oth on otar

y i s d i r ected to en

ter th i s am ou

n t as a f i n al ju dg m en

t.

I T I S S O O RDERED.

/s /J ef f r ey J Cl ar k

J u dg e

J J C: jb

5