Court Opinion

ID: 9949151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 22:03:55.94049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:27:19.660864
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

1205 COASTAL, LLC, a Delaware )
limited liability company,    )
                              )
Plaintiff,                    )
                              )
                              )            C.A. No. S22C-07-002 CAK
    v.                        )
                              )
                              )
COVE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, )
INC., a Delaware corporation, )
                              )
       Defendant.             )

                         Submitted: February 29, 2024
                           Decided: March 8, 2024

                      Upon Affidavits for Attorneys’ Fees

               DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART

                                   ORDER

Richard E. Berl, Jr., Esquire, Hudson Jones Jaywork & Fisher, LLC, 34382
Carpenter’s Way, Suite 3, Lewes, DE 19958, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Robert J. Valihura, Esquire, Morton, Valihura & Zerbato, LLC, 3704 Kennett Pike,
Suite 200, Greenville, DE 19807, Attorney for Defendant.

Aaron E. Moore, Esquire and M. Claire McCudden, Esquire, Marshall Dennehey,
P.C., 1007 North Orange Street, Suite 600, P.O. Box 8888, Wilmington, DE 19899-
8888, Attorneys for Defendant.

KARSNITZ, R. J.
        In my Opinion dated January 29, 2024, I discussed the request of each party to

award it attorneys’ fees and costs against the other. Specifically, Defendant

requested such relief under two statutory provisions of the Delaware Uniform

Common Interest Ownership Act (“DUCIOA”)1

        The first is 25 Del. C. §81-417(a), which provides that if a “person subject to

this chapter fails to comply with any of its provisions or any provision of the

declaration or bylaws, any person or class of persons adversely affected by the failure

to comply has a claim for appropriate relief. The court, in an appropriate case, may

award court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Defendant argued that the Court

of Common Pleas had already ruled in its favor on the statutory lien in an amount

well above the amount of the recorded lien, yet Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit in

Superior Court solely on the basis of the recorded lien, in an attempt to avoid its

obligations under the statutory lien, even though the decision of the Court of

Common Pleas on attorneys’ fees was still pending. Defendant claimed that it is a

person adversely affected by Plaintiff’s failure under DUCIOA to comply with its

obligations under the Cove Declaration and that is was harmed by Plaintiff’s

prosecution of this lawsuit.

          The second is 25 Del. C. § 81-316(a), which provides that, in its efforts under

1
    25 Del. C. § 81-101 et seq.
                                             2
DUCIOA to collect the amounts due to it under the statutory lien, Defendant is entitled

to, inter alia, “court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in attempting

collection of the same.” In defending this action, Defendant was compelled to further

litigate – beyond the Court of Common Pleas -- the issue of whether it was entitled

to past due assessments and charges. T he statute does not provide that only a

prevailing plaintiff can recover legal fees and costs. It provides for recovery by

Defendant “as a result of an administrative or judicial decision.”2

       In Delaware the general rule is that each party bears its attorneys’ fees and

expenses of litigation unless there is a “contractual or statutory basis for liability.” 3

A provision for personal liability for attorneys’ fees contained in the Cove

Declaration or DUCIOA is an enforceable contractual obligation against a record

owner of a condominium unit.4 I may order payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs so long as such payment is authorized by some provision of statute or

contract.5 Both the Cove Declaration and DUCIOA entitle Defendant to reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the obtaining and collection of this summary

judgment.

2
  25 Del. C. § 81-316(a).
3
   Casson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 361, 370 (Del. Super. 1982).
4
   Id.
5
  Id.

                                               3
      After rendering judgment for Defendant, and after reviewing the facts and

procedural history of the case, I awarded attorneys’ fees to Defendant. I asked

counsel for Defendant to file for my review an Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees within

twenty-one (21) days of the Opinion and counsel for Plaintiff to file any response to

the Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees within fourteen (14) days thereafter. Both counsel

have done so within the prescribed time period.

      The Affidavits and related correspondence I received from counsel for the

Defendant were disappointing and inadequate. The fees of Morton, & Zerbato, LLC

were summarily stated in dollars and billable hours for lawyers and staff, without

any breakdown of which lawyer or staff person provided the legal services, what the

legal services were, when the legal services were provided, and at what applicable

billing rate the legal services were provided.

      Similarly, the fees of Marshall Dennehy, P.C. are stated as a lump sum with

no breakdown of which lawyer or staff person provided the legal services, what the

legal services were, when the legal services were provided, and at what applicable

billing rate the legal services were provided.

      With this minimal information, it is impossible for me to ascertain whether

the legal services and the fees therefor were reasonable and proportionate to the

results obtained by Defendant.

                                          4
      Therefore, I deny the award of attorneys’ fees to Defendant in this case with

prejudice, and only award the amount of costs and expenses as set forth in the

Affidavits.

      It is therefore unnecessary for me to consider the arguments of counsel for

Plaintiff that the attorneys’ fees for one of Defendant’s attorneys are duplicative and

therefore constitute a windfall.

          IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                               /s/ Craig A. Karsnitz

cc:   Prothonotary

                                           5