Title: Williams v. White Oak Builders
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 342, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 22, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LUELLEN WILLIAMS, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
WHITE OAK BUILDERS, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 342, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 17556 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 27, 2006 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: November 22, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of November 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
Plaintiff Luellen Williams filed this appeal from the Court of 
Chancery’s opinion, dated June 6, 2006, which entered judgment in favor of the 
defendants below, White Oak, Inc., White Oak Builders, Inc., and Capano 
Builders, Inc.  Williams’ notice of appeal names White Oak Builders, Inc. as the 
only appellee against whom her appeal is taken.  Her opening brief, however, 
purports to raise claims with respect to all three defendants below.  Even if this 
Court assumes without deciding that Williams properly perfected her appeal as to 
 
2
all three defendants,1 we find it manifest on the face of Williams’ opening brief 
that the judgment of the Court of Chancery must be affirmed.   
(2) 
The trial record fairly supports the following version of events: 
Williams signed a sales agreement to purchase a new, end unit townhouse in New 
Castle in September 1996. During the final walkthrough of the property on 
November 26, 1996, Williams noticed water in the backyard of the property.  
Williams did not notice any water inside the house.  At settlement the following 
day, Williams brought up the issue of the water in the backyard.  The builder’s 
agent made a handwritten notation stating, “[w]ater problem in basement to be 
resolved.”  Williams began complaining to Capano Builders and to New Castle 
County of a water problem in her basement as early as 1997.  The defendants and 
their agents made numerous attempts to resolve the problem but were unable to do 
so to Williams’ satisfaction.   
(3) 
Ultimately, Willaims filed suit in 1999 seeking specific performance 
of White Oak’s alleged covenant to fix a water problem in the basement of her 
townhouse.  Alternatively, Williams sought rescission of the sales agreement she 
entered into for her townhouse with Capano Builders.  As late as 2002, discovery 
                                                 
1 The three defendants below are part of a family of companies, all three of which Frank 
J. Capano is president. All three defendants were represented by the same counsel at trial, who 
continues to represent White Oak Builders, Inc. in this appeal. 
 
3
in the case was ongoing.  After sitting idle for over a year, the case finally was 
called to trial in 2004.   
(4) 
At trial, Williams’ expert testified that he conducted a visual 
inspection of Williams’ property in 1999.  He did not perform any destructive or 
invasive testing.  He concluded that the source of the water in Williams’ basement 
was an elevated water table and, probably, a spring.   He also testified that the 
water likely was there when the original excavation of the foundation took place in 
1996. 
(5) 
Defendants’ expert, on the other hand, testified that it was necessary 
to conduct more than a visual inspection of the property in order to determine the 
source of the water.  Defendants’ expert also testified as a fact witness because he 
had drafted the subdivision plan for the townhouse project and had been present 
during the week of construction of Williams’ building.  He, as well as several other 
defense witnesses, testified that the hole dug for the foundation had been open for 
two weeks before the walls were built and that the hole had remained dry, except 
for the collection of some rain water.  The Vice Chancellor found defendants’ 
witnesses credible and concluded, as a matter of fact, that the defendants were 
unaware of any water problem affecting Williams’ townhouse through the time 
they backfilled the foundation hole.  Moreover, the trial court concluded that 
Williams had failed to prove that the problem as it existed at the time of trial in 
 
4
2005, or even at the time of her expert’s visual inspection of the property in 1999, 
had existed at the time of closing in 1996.  Determining the credibility of witnesses 
is a matter for the fact-finder.2  We find the Court of Chancery’s factual findings 
supported by the record. 
(6) 
Because Williams had failed to prove the existence of a serious water 
problem in her basement prior to the closing date, the Court of Chancery 
necessarily concluded that Williams could not prove that the defendants had 
knowledge of such a problem, which they intentionally or negligently 
misrepresented to Williams. The Court of Chancery, therefore, concluded that 
Williams’ claim for rescission of the sales agreement based on intentional or 
negligent misrepresentation failed as a matter of law.3  Similarly, the trial court 
concluded that Williams’ claim for rescission of the agreement based on mutual 
mistake of fact, i.e., the parties’ mutual mistake as to the magnitude of the flow of 
water into her basement, failed because Williams had not proven that the problem 
existed at the time the parties entered their agreement in September 1996; thus, 
there was no mistake of fact.4  We find sufficient evidence in the record to support 
the Court of Chancery’s finding that Williams had not proven the existence of a 
water problem in 1996.  In light of this finding, there is no legal error in the Court 
                                                 
2 Barks v. Herzberg, 206 A.2d 507, 509 (Del. 1965). 
3 See Kronenberg v. Katz, 872 A.2d 568, 585 n.25 (Del. Ch. 2004). 
4 Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 151 (1981). 
 
5
of Chancery’s conclusion that Williams was not entitled to rescission based on any 
the theories she put forth. 
(7) 
Furthermore, we find no legal error in the Court of Chancery’s 
conclusion that Williams had failed to establish a claim for specific performance 
because she presented no evidence that money damages would provide an 
inadequate or incomplete remedy.5 
(8) 
After careful consideration of appellant’s opening brief and the 
appellee’s motion to affirm, we find it manifest that the judgment should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Court of Chancery’s well-reasoned post-trial opinion 
dated June 6, 2006. To the extent the issues on appeal are factual, we find 
sufficient evidence in the record to support the Court of Chancery’s findings, and 
we find no error in the trial court’s legal rulings.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 
Chancery is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
5 Equitable Trust Co. v. Gallagher, 102 A.2d 538, 546-47 (Del. 1954).