Title: New Castle County v. DiSabatino et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 218, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 21, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
NEW CASTLE COUNTY,
§
§  No. 218, 2000
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§  Court BelowCourt of Chancery
§  of the State of Delaware,
v.
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 12714
PETER DISABATINO and CINDY §
G. DISABATINO, his wife, and 
§
DANIEL DOMINELLI and 
§
MAUREEN M. DOMINELLI,
§
his wife,
§
§
Plaintiffs Below,
§
Appellees.
§
  Submitted:  May 15, 2001
     Decided:  August 21, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, HOLLAND, BERGER and
STEELE, Justices (constituting the Court en Banc).
Upon appeal from the Court of Chancery.  AFFIRMED.
John E. Tracey, Esquire, New Castle County Law Department, of
New Castle, Delaware, for appellant.
Raymond E. Tomasetti, Esquire, of Newport, Delaware, for
appellee.
HOLLAND, Justice:
2
This appeal originated from a complaint filed by the plaintiffs-
appellees, Peter J. DiSabatino and Cindy G. DiSabatino, and Daniel J.
Dominelli and Maureen M. Dominelli, against the defendant-appellant,
New Castle County (“the County”).  The Complaint sought to have the
Court of Chancery issue an order compelling the County to act on
appellees’ application for building permits for Lots No. 63-A and No. 63-B
Penn Manor and monetary damages for their losses as a result of the
County’s denial of these building permits.
New Castle County subsequently filed a complaint against Michael J.
DiSabatino for Injunctive Relief and a Declaratory Judgment seeking an
order requiring him to record a Record Minor Subdivision Plan combining
Lot No. 63-A and Lot No. 63-B, restoring the status quo and having the
Court of Chancery declare that the subdivision plan dividing Lot No. 63 is
invalid.  Michael J. DiSabatino subsequently died and the Estate of
Michael J. DiSabatino was substituted as the named defendant.  The Court
of Chancery then consolidated the two cases.
A trial was held on April 28, 1999.  Prior to the trial, the Court of
Chancery granted the Estate of Michael J. DiSabatino’s Motion to Dismiss
them from the case as a party defendant.  On March 29, 2000, after the
3
parties completed post-trial briefing, the Court of Chancery issued an
opinion.1  It held that New Castle County was barred, by the doctrine of
equitable estoppel, from prohibiting the plaintiffs from receiving building
permits for their lots.
In this appeal, New Castle County argues that the Court of Chancery
erred in holding that it was equitably estopped from enforcing the
provisions of its subdivision code.  The County submits that the appellees’
failed to demonstrate that they had substantially relied, in good faith, on an
affirmative act of New Castle County, such that a balancing of the equities
must be decided in the plaintiffs’ favor.  We have concluded that the
judgments entered by the Court of Chancery must be affirmed.
Facts2
The DiSabatinos are husband and wife, as are the Dominellis.  New
Castle County is a political body of State of Delaware.  It is established
pursuant to 9 Del. C. § 1101.
The parties’ dispute arises from the October 14, 1977 subdivision of
Penn Manor, a development located adjacent to Doe Run Road in Newark,
                                   
1 DiSabatino v. New Castle County, Del. Ch., __ A.2d ___, No. 12714, 2001 WL
354394, Jacobs, V.C. (March 29,2000) (Mem. Op.).
2 The facts are taken from the Court of Chancery’s opinion.
4
New Castle County, Delaware.  During the subdivision process, Note 10
was placed on the subdivision plan.  This Note prohibited future
subdivision for Lot No. 63 in Penn Manor.  No explanation was given at
the trial why or under what circumstances the Note 10 restriction was
created.
On June 4, 1981, a resubdivision plan for Lots 62 and 64 was
approved, at which point Note 10 was renumbered as “Note 8.”  At that
time, Lots 62, 63 and 64 were under the control of Dina Holdings, an
entity of which Michael DiSabatino was an officer.  Mr. DiSabatino signed
the 1981 record of resubdivision plan which contained Note 8 prohibiting
any subdivision of Lot No. 63.
On March 17, 1982, Dina Holdings conveyed Lot No. 63 to Michael
DiSabatino.  During the next nine years, Lot No. 63 remained
unsubdivied.  In 1991, Michael DiSabatino hired Gejza Csoltko, a
professional engineer, to prepare a resubdivision plan for Lot No. 63.3
Mr. Csoltko submitted a resubdivision plan for Lot No. 63 but did not
bring Note 8 to the attention of County planners, nor did his proposed
subdivision plan disclose to the County planners that the plan’s intent was
5
to remove the restriction.  The plan stated only that its purpose was to
subdivide Lot No. 63.
The resubdivision plan was assigned to Mr. Charles McCombs, a
County Planning Department employee, for review.  During his ten to
fifteen minute review of the record plan for Penn Manor, Mr. McCombs
did not uncover Note 8, nor at any time during the review process did Mr.
Csoltko or Michael DiSabatino bring the existence of Note 8 to the
attention of the County planners.  On October 17, 1991 the Court approved
the resubdivision plan for Lot No. 63, and thereby removed the Note 8
restriction.
After Lot No. 63 was subdivided, the two newly created lots, Lots
63A and 63B were sold to Daniel Dominelli and Peter DiSabatino.
Dominelli purchased Lot No. 63A for $42,000; and Peter DiSabatino,
Michael DiSabatino’s nephew, purchased Lot 63B for $5,000.  The new
lots are approximately the same size.  Lot No. 63B is situated at the top of
a hill that overlooks Lot No. 63A.  The drainage easement that bisected the
original Lot No. 63 impacts Lots 63A more than it does Lot No. 63B, and
                                                                                                         
3 Mr. Csoltko had prepared the original subdivision plan for Penn Manor, had practiced
in Delaware for twenty years, and was familiar with the subdivision process.
6
although the entirety of Lot No. 63 is burdened with protected wetlands,
those wetlands affect Lot No. 63A more than they do Lot No. 63B.
 Shortly after the subdivision plan was approved by the County, and
while the plaintiffs were making plans to build homes on their respective
lots, Michael Mitchell, Esquire, an Assistant County Attorney, learned of
the restrictive note.  As a result, Mr. Mitchell returned the subdivision
plan to Ramesh Batta, the site engineer who had been retained by
plaintiffs.  Mr. Mitchell advised Mr. Batta that the subdivision plan would
not be processed and that no building permits would be issued for Lots No.
63A and 63B, because the original subdivision of Lot No. 63 was
prohibited by Note 8.  This action followed.
Equitable Estoppel Contentions
The plaintiffs seek to compel New Castle County to issue building
permits for two parcels of land that they own, plus attorney fees and costs.
At issue is whether the County may validly rescind its earlier decision
resubdividing the lots that the plaintiffs purchased.  That rescinded
authorization was the basis for the County’s refusal to grant to appellees
permits to build their residences, after they had purchased their lots.  The
appellees contend that when they purchased their respective lots from
7
Michael DiSabatino, they substantially relied to their detriment on the
County’s October 17, 1991 approval of the original subdivision.  They also
argue that once they purchased the resubdivided lots, the County could not
rescind the subdivision approval by virtue of the doctrine of equitable
estoppel.
The County argues that the appellees should not succeed on their
equitable estoppel claim for two reasons.  First, the County submits that a
critical element of that claim — that there be an act or omission by the
government — cannot be established where the government act is based on
fraud or mistake.  The County argues that Michael DiSabatino fraudulently
induced the County to approve the resubdivision of Lot No. 63, or,
alternatively, that the County approved the subdivision by mistake.
Second, the County argues that the plaintiffs have not established that they
substantially changed their position in reliance upon the resubdivision
approval.
The County also contends that the appellees are not “bona fide
purchasers” for two reasons.  First, the DiSabatinos did not purchase Lot
No. 63B “for value” because they paid only $5,000 for a lot that should
have been worth more than Lot No. 63A, which sold for $42,000.
8
Second, the County submits that the plaintiffs had at least constructive
knowledge that the restrictive note had originally been placed on Lot No.
63.  Accordingly, the County contends that the plaintiffs would have
discovered that fact if they had conducted a reasonable investigation.
Standard of Review
The trial judge made findings of fact on the questions of fraud,
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, and the bona fide purchaser status
of the plaintiffs.  Those factual findings were based upon consideration of
the documentary evidence and the testimony and credibility of “live”
witnesses at trial.  When the determination of facts turns on a question of
credibility and the acceptance or rejection of “live” testimony by the trial
judge, those factual findings must be given great deference by an appellate
court.4  This Court must accept the factual findings made by the trial judge
if those findings are supported by the record and are the product of an
orderly and logical deductive process.5  In the exercise of judicial restraint,
the applicable standard of appellate review requires this Court to defer to
                                   
4 Levitt v. Bouvier, Del. Supr,. 287 A.2d 671, 673 (1972).
5 Id.
9
such factual findings, even though independently we might have reached
different conclusions.6
Conclusion
The Court of Chancery concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims were
meritorious.  The Court of Chancery held that New Castle County is
equitably estopped from rescinding its original subdivision approval.7
Accordingly, the Court of Chancery entered a final judgment in favor of
the plaintiffs.
We have considered the issues raised in this appeal after oral
argument and on the briefs filed by the parties. We have determined that:
to the extent the issues raised on appeal are factual, the record evidence
supports the trial judge's factual findings; to the extent the errors alleged
on appeal are attributed to an abuse of discretion, the record does not
support those assertions; and to the extent that the issues raised on appeal
are legal, they are controlled by settled Delaware law, which was properly
applied.
                                   
6 Id.
7 See Acierno v. New Castle County, D. Del., C.A. No. 92-385, 2000 WL 718346,
Robinson J. (May 23, 2000); Dragon Run Farms, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of New
Castle County, Del. Super., 1988 WL 90551, Stiftel, J. (Aug. 11, 1988); Allen v.
Folsom, Del. Ch., 372 A.2d 200 (1976).
10
Therefore, this Court has concluded that the judgments of the Court
of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons
assigned by the Court of Chancery in its well-reasoned decision dated
March 28, 2000.8
                                   
8 DiSabatino v. New Castle County, Del. Ch., __ A.2d ___, No. 12714, 2001 WL
354394, Jacobs, V.C. (March 29,2000) (Mem. Op.).