1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WILD MEADOWS MHC, LLC, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) C.A. No.: K22A-05-002 RLG

)

WILD MEADOWS )

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, )

INC., )

)

Appellee. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Submitted: January 8, 2024

Decided: April 2, 2024

Upon Appeal from a Final Decision and Order of the Arbitrator – AFFIRMED.

Anthony V. Panicola, Esquire, Community Legal Aid Society, Inc., Dover, 

Delaware, Attorney for Appellant.

Robert J. Valihura, Esquire, Morton, Valihura & Zerbato, LLC, Greenville, 

Delaware, Attorney for Appellee.

GREEN-STREETT, J.
2

I. Introduction

The instant appeal stems from a dispute between the owner of a manufactured 

home community, Wild Meadows MHC, LLC (the “Landowner”), and an 

association representing the affected homeowners of that community, Wild 

Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “HOA”). Landowner sought an 

above-inflation rent increase under the Rent Justification Act,1the HOA objected on 

behalf of certain homeowners, and the parties proceeded to arbitration.

The Arbitrator issued his Arbitration Decision (the “Decision”), finding that 

Landowner met the statutory requirements of 25 Del. C. § 7052 to justify an aboveinflation rent increase.2

 The Arbitrator then examined the proposed rent increase 

amount, and determined that Landowner sought a disproportionate amount of 

increased rent from the affected homeowners.3 Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied a 

portion of Landowner’s proposed above-inflation rent increase.4 Landowner 

appealed to this Court, arguing that the Arbitrator exceeded the scope of his role 

1

25 Del. C. § 7050 et seq.

2 See generally, Decision, Apr. 18, 2022.

3

Id. at 4.

4

Id. at 4-5.
3

under 25 Del. C. § 7053.5 For the reasons set forth below, the Decision is 

AFFIRMED.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Community and Its Improvement

Wild Meadows is a housing community in Kent County, Delaware.6 The 

community contains 223 lots for rent by owners of manufactured homes.7 

Landowner purchased the Wild Meadows community in October 2017.8

Landowner spent $14,794.00 to install light fixtures around the Wild 

Meadows community club house in July of 2020.9 Landowner, seeking to recoup 

its expenditure, sought an above CPI-U10 rent increase for the year 2021.11 As 

required by 25 Del. C. § 7052, Landowner sent notice to the affected homeowners 

and held a formal meeting to discuss the proposed rent increase.12 Following that 

5 Appellant’s Opening Br. at 2.

6

Id. at 3.

7 Appellee’s Reply Br. at 1.

8

Id.

9 Decision at 2.

10 The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City area.

11 Appellant’s Opening Br. at 3-4.

12 Id. at 4.
4

meeting, the HOA objected to the rent increase and filed for arbitration under 25 Del. 

C. § 7053.13 The parties proceeded to arbitration, which included extensive 

discovery and a two-day hearing.14 

B. The Arbitration Decision

The Arbitrator issued his Decision on April 18, 2022.15 He found that 

Landowner’s expenditure – the $14,794.00 – directly related to the operation, 

maintenance, or improvement of the manufactured home community.16 The 

Arbitrator further found that the expenditure constituted a capital improvement.17 

As neither party contended that Landowner violated any health or safety 

requirements, the Arbitrator concluded that “the initial terms and requirements of the 

Rent Justification Act were met.”18 The Arbitrator determined that Landowner’s 

expenditure did not lower its costs to offset the expenditure.19 Thus, Landowner 

13 Id. at 5.

14 Id. at 6.

15 Decision at 1.

16 Id. at 2.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 3-4.
5

could “recoup its $14,794.00 through a rent increase above CPI-U, but no more.”20 

This portion of the Decision has not been disputed by either party.

The Arbitrator continued his analysis by considering “which homeowners 

[bore] the brunt of the capital improvement cost.”21 He noted that, when Landowner 

notified the homeowners of the potential rent increase, Landowner offered an 

extended lease option to all homeowners.22 Homeowners who accepted the extended 

lease “would be excluded from the rent increase for capital improvements.”23 58 

homeowners objected to the rent increase. Those 58 homeowners exercised their 

right to arbitration, represented by the HOA.24 Landowner sought to recover its 

expenditure from a rent increase affecting solely those 58 homeowners.25

The Arbitrator deemed that proposal unfair to the 58 homeowners. He 

reasoned that a rent increase, stemming from a capital expenditure that benefitted all 

homeowners – but affected only the homeowners who declined to enter into an 

extended lease – violated “the spirit of the statute.”26 The Arbitrator posited that, if 

20 Id.

21 Id. at 4.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Id.
6

only one homeowner had objected, Landowner would “surely not” be authorized to 

pass the entire cost of the expenditure through to that single homeowner.27 Thus, he 

concluded that the rent increase must be based on each homeowner’s proportional 

share of the expenditure inclusive of all homeowners, not just the 58 that objected.28

Factoring in the homeowners who signed lease extensions, the Arbitrator 

noted the potentially problematic effect of the terms of the lease extensions. The 

Arbitrator found that the extended lease terms likely obviated those homeowners 

proportional responsibility for the expenditures.

29

 Accordingly, he decided that 

Landowner could recoup only the portion of the expenditure attributable to the 

homeowners who did not extend their lease under the terms that insulated them from 

the rent increase.30

C. The Instant Appeal

Landowner appeals that decision, arguing that the Arbitrator’s determination 

that the expenditure be divided among all homeowners, not just the 58 objectors, 

constituted legal error.31 Landowner asserts that the Arbitrator’s analysis relied on 

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Id.

30 Id. at 4-5.

31 Appellant’s Opening Br. at 2.
7

“some inherent discretion found nowhere” in any statute.32 Further, Landowner 

contends that § 7053 required the Arbitrator to grant Landowner’s proposed rent 

increase once Landowner demonstrated its compliance with § 7052.33

The HOA urges this Court to affirm the Decision, advancing the same logic 

employed by the Arbitrator. The HOA cites Rehoboth Bay Homeowners’ 

Association v. Hometown Rehoboth Bay34 in support of its contention that the 58 

affected homeowners can only be required to pay their proportionate share of the 

expenditure.35 The HOA further asserts that the Arbitrator’s decision did not 

exercise any authority over the nonparties to the arbitration, but rather determined 

the parameters by which the rent increase should be calculated and implemented.

36

III. Standard of Review

“When reviewing an arbitrator’s decision, the Court must independently 

determine (1) whether the record created in the arbitration is sufficient justification 

for the arbitrator’s decision, and (2) whether the arbitrator’s decisions are free from 

32 Id. at 8.

33 Id. at 12.

34 252 A.3d 434, 437 (Del. 2021).

35 Appellee’s Answering Br. at 8.

36 Id. at 15.
8

legal error.”37 A “substantial evidence review is the appropriate standard of review 

for the arbitrator’s factual findings.”38 The Court limits its review to a determination 

of whether the arbitrator’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free 

from legal error.39 “Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”40 “Issues of 

statutory construction and interpretation are reviewed de novo.”41

III. Discussion

Unlike many of the prior cases arguing the application of § 7052, the parties 

do not dispute that Landowner successfully justified a rent increase. The sole issue 

before the Court in this appeal concerns the Arbitrator granting a rent increase for 

less than the amount proposed by Landowner. Rather than dividing the expenditure 

amount, $14,794.00, amongst the 58 affected homeowners, the Arbitrator 

determined the rent increase should be limited to each homeowner’s proportionate 

37 Ridgewood Manor MHC, LLC v. Ridgewood Manor HOA, 2023 WL 4363899, at *3 (Del. 

Super. July 3, 2023) (citing 25 Del. C. § 7054).

38 Sandhill Acres MHC, LC v. Sandhill Acres Home Owners Ass’n, 210 A.3d 725, 731 n.37 (Del. 

2019).

39 Ridgewood, 2023 WL 4363899, at *3.

40 Dec. Corp. v. Wild Meadows Home Owners Ass’n, 2016 WL 3866272, at *4 (Del. Super. July 

12, 2016), abrogated by Rehoboth Bay Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Hometown Rehoboth Bay, LLC, 

252 A.3d 434 (Del. 2021).

41 Ridgewood, 2023 WL 4363899, at *3, (citing Bon Ayre Land, LLC v. Bon Ayre Cmty. Ass’n, 

149 A.3d 227, 233 (Del. 2016).
9

amount of the expenditure.42 Although the Arbitrator noted there were 233 lots 

within the Wild Meadows community, he left it to the parties to calculate a rent 

increase consistent with his Decision.43

A. The rent increase must be proportionate

Delaware decisional law supports the Arbitrator’s determination. In Rehoboth 

Bay Homeowners’ Association, the Delaware Supreme Court found that a rent 

increase justified by a capital improvement cannot exceed “that lot’s full, 

proportionate share of those costs in those years.”44 There, the community owner 

sought to continue a rent increase as part of the base rent amount for each affected 

lot for subsequent years.45 The Delaware Supreme Court, relying on its prior 

pronouncement in Bon Ayre Land, LLC, articulated “that the [Rent Justification] Act 

is effectively a rent control statute.”46 It held that “[c]onstruing the Act to allow a 

community owner to recover the cost of a one-time capital improvement year-afteryear, even after fully recovering that cost in year one, conflicts with the Act’s stated 

42 Decision at 4.

43 Id. at 5.

44 252 A.3d 434, 437 (Del. 2021).

45 Id. at 442-43.

46 Id. at 443 (internal quotations omitted) (citing Bon Ayre Land, LLC, 149 A.3d at 234).
10

purpose and with our reasoning in Bon Ayre.”47 That holding crystalized the concept 

that the Rent Justification Act intends to prevent rent increases that “become [ ] 

unrelated to the benefits and costs of living in the community.”48

In the instant case, Landowner seeks to burden the 58 affected homeowners 

with the entirety of its expenditure, despite that expenditure presumably benefitting 

every homeowner within Wild Meadows. Allowing that narrow interpretation would 

run contrary to the intention of the Rent Justification Act, as well as the Delaware 

Supreme Court cases that interpret it. As the Arbitrator correctly pointed out, such 

a ruling would permit a community owner to subject the objecting homeowners to a 

disproportionate rent increase.49 Apportioned amongst a large number of 

homeowners that increase may not appear problematic. The fewer homeowners that 

object, however, the more punitive that rent increase becomes. In effect, this 

interpretation would allow the community owner to coerce homeowners into 

unfavorable lease extensions to avoid risking disproportionate rent increases. That 

type of negotiation imbalance belies the spirit of the Rent Justification Act.

Landowner argues that the Arbitrator impermissibly exercised authority over 

the “other 165 homeowners who [were] not parties to this action” by requiring the 

47 Id. at 444.

48 Id.

49 Decision at 4.
11

cost of the expenditure be divided proportionally across every lot.50 The Arbitrator, 

however, specifically noted that those homeowners who entered into long-term 

leases with Landowner were likely exempt from the rent increase contemplated by 

the Decision.51 The Arbitrator did not require Landowner to raise the rent of the 

non-party homeowners. He simply determined that Landowner could not force the 

58 objecting homeowners to pay the entirety of an expenditure that benefitted the 

entire community.52

B. The Arbitrator did not commit legal error by lowering the rent 

increase

Landowner further contends that the Arbitrator did not have the authority to 

alter the proposed rent increase once he determined Landowner complied with the 

requirements of § 7052.53 As the Arbitrator found that Landowner could “recoup its 

$14,794.00 through a rent increase,”54 Landowner posits that the rent increase it 

proposed had to be accepted because § 7053 does not expressly authorize the 

50 Appellant’s Opening Br. at 2.

51 Decision at 4.

52 Id.

53 Appellant’s Opening Br. at 11.

54 Decision at 4.
12

Arbitrator to decrease the amount of the proposed rent increase.55 Again, Delaware 

decisional law supports the Arbitrator’s decision.

In Shady Park Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Shady Park MHC, LLC, the 

arbitrator found an above-inflation rent increase justified.56 The Shady Park

arbitrator found that fairness required an adjustment to the proposed rent increase.57 

The solution employed by the arbitrator involved setting a schedule of rent increases, 

allowing the community owner to reach market rent over time.58 This Court upheld 

that solution, finding substantial evidence existed to support the arbitrator’s finding 

that “it was necessary to adjust the rental increase [to which] the Owner was entitled 

to ensure the balancing of unequal bargaining power.”59

Here, the Arbitrator found that Landowner could raise rent above inflation to 

recoup its capital expenditure. The Arbitrator then required that increase to be 

proportional, instead of only 58 homeowners “[bearing] the brunt of that capital 

55 Appellant’s Opening Br. at 12 (“The Court can reject this argument out of hand because 

[Landowner] fully complied with the Act’s requirements to entitle it to an above-inflation rent 

increase in the amount it sought.”).

56 2023 WL 2366643, at *7 (Del. Super. Mar. 3, 2023), aff’d, 308 A.3d 168 (Del. 2023).

57 Id.

58 Id.

59 Id.
13

improvement cost.”60 The Court finds that adjustment supported by substantial 

evidence and necessary “to ensure the balancing of unequal bargaining power.”

61

.

C. The Arbitrator did not impose an unauthorized obligation on 

Landowner

Landowner’s final argument, derived from Sandhill Acres, asserts that 

“neither an arbitrator nor this Court may impose a requirement on the community 

owner that the statute does not contain.”62 Landowner contends that the Court 

cannot require Landowner to apply the rent increase to all owners because that 

“obligation is not contained in the act.”63 In Sandhill Acres, the Delaware Supreme 

Court found that this Court could not impose an obligation on a community owner 

not enumerated by the statute.

64

 

This Court, in affirming the Arbitrator’s Decision, does not require 

Landowner to further justify its entitlement to a rent increase nor does it impose any 

further obligation on Landowner. Rather, the Arbitrator’s decision – and this Court’s 

affirmation – limit the proportional impact of the Landowner’s rent increase on the 

60 Decision at 4.

61 Shady Park Homeowners’ Ass’n, 2023 WL 2366643, at *7.

62 Appellant’s Reply Br. at 7-8 (internal quotations omitted) (citing Sandhill Acres, 210 A.3d at 

729).

63 Id. at 8.

64 Sandhill Acres, 210 A.3d at 729.
14

58 objecting homeowners. “The justification process outlined by the act – and 

clarified by the Delaware Supreme Court – was intended to be moderate, equitable, 

and balanced.”65 The Rent Justification Act does not permit community owners to 

force homeowners objecting to a rent increase to pay more than their proportionate 

share of a capital expenditure.66 As no additional requirement has been improperly 

placed on Landowner, its argument based on Sandhill Acres fails.

IV. Conclusion

The Arbitrator’s Decision correctly followed the legal framework outlined by 

the Rent Justification Act, as well as the cases that interpret that act. He determined 

that each homeowner’s rent increase be proportionate to her portion of Landowner’s 

capital expenditure. That decision stands free of legal error, and is supported by 

substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Arbitrator’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

65 Ridgewood Manor MHC, LLC, 2023 WL 4363899, at *4.

66 See generally 25 Del. C. § 7050 et seq.