Title: Smith v. The Estate of James Godwin
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 201, 2021
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 14, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DENNIS L. SMITH, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
THE ESTATE OF JAMES 
GODWIN, LAVERNE 
BROCKINGTON, EXECUTRIX, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 201, 2021 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  C.A. No. S09C-07-045 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 18, 2022 
Decided: 
April 14, 2022 
 
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 
find it evident that the judgment below should be affirmed.  Contrary to the 
appellant’s allegations, the Superior Court had jurisdiction over the underlying 
ejectment action.1  And because the appellant failed to appeal the Superior Court’s 
April 25, 2011 order granting the appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 
 
1 See 10 Del. C. § 6701(a) (“The legal title to lands or to any tenements whereon entry can be made 
may be tried in a civil action, based upon a cause of action in ejectment.”); Nelson v. Russo, 844 
A.2d 301, 302 (Del. 2004) (noting that a complaint for ejectment is an action at law, over which 
the Superior Court has jurisdiction). 
2 
 
on the count of ejectment,2 the appellant’s claim that it is a “void default order” is 
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.3   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
2 The same order also acknowledged that the appellee had waived the remaining count in the 
complaint. 
3 See Dover Hist. Soc’y, Inc. v. City of Dover Plan. Comm’n, 902 A.2d 1084, 1092 (Del. 2006) 
(“Res judicata operates to bar a claim where the following five-part test is satisfied: (1) the original 
court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (2) the parties to the original action 
were the same as those parties, or in privity, in the case at bar; (3) the original cause of action or 
the issues decided was the same as the case at bar; (4) the issues in the prior action must have been 
decided adversely to the appellants in the case at bar; and (5) the decree in the prior action was a 
final decree.”).