Title: Lane v. Dept. of Community Development
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 51, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 14, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHERIDAN LANE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING 
f/k/a NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 51, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 03E-10-177 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 10, 2004 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 14, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of October 2004, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’ motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Sheridan Lane, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s order dismissing his complaint on statute of limitations 
grounds.  The appellee, Department of Community Development and 
Housing (“the County”), has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Lane’s opening 
brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that Lane filed his complaint on October 20, 
2003 alleging claims for breach of contract and debt against the County.  
The alleged breach of contract related to events that occurred between June 
1993 and August 1997 with respect to Lane’s former residence.  The record 
reflects that, on August 6, 1997, Lane accepted a settlement proposal from 
the County and signed an agreement that constituted “a full and final 
settlement of any and all claims” that Lane could assert against the County 
with respect to the demolition of his former residence and any obligation 
that the County might have concerning relocation or other assistance.   
(3) 
The County filed a motion to dismiss Lane’s claims on the 
ground that, by signing the settlement agreement, he had waived any and all 
claims against the County regarding the demolition of his former residence.  
The County further argued that Lane’s claim for damages was barred by the 
three year limitations period of 10 Del. C. § 8106.  Lane filed a response to 
the motion to dismiss.  He argued that the County did not pay him the 
appropriate amount in 1997 for the demolition of his property and that he 
was “blamelessly ignorant” of his cause of action against the County until 
2001.   
(4) 
The Superior Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  At 
the conclusion of the hearing, the judge held that Lane could and should 
 
3
have known of any potential cause of action against the County in 1997 prior 
to his signing of the settlement agreement.  Thus, Lane’s complaint should 
have been filed by 2000, at the latest.  The Superior Court, therefore, granted 
the County’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Lane had failed to file his 
complaint within the three year limitations period of 10 Del. C. § 8106. 
(5) 
Having carefully considered the parties= respective positions on 
appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision entered 
January 12, 2004.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding that Lane’s 
claims were barred by the statute of limitations.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice