Douglas Milbourne and Orquidea Milbourne v. Derrick Swinton

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

DOUGLAS MILBOURNE and )
ORQUIDEA MILBOURNE, )
Appellants,

V. C.A. No. CPU4-21-003798
DERRICK SWINTON,
Appellee.

Submitted: September 30, 2024
Decided: December 2, 2024

Douglas Milbourne Derrick Swinton

Orquidea Milbourne 2 Thomas Court

400 Old South Chapel St. Apt. 208

Newark, DE 19713 Union, NJ 07083

Self-represented Appellants Self-represented Appellee
DECISION AFTER TRIAL

SURLES, J.
Appellants Douglas Milbourne (“Tenant”) and his wife, Orquidea Milbourne
(collectively, “Tenants”), bring this appeal from a decision of the Justice of the Peace
Court (“JP Court”) to recover $10,500 for their security deposit and labor costs
associated with cleaning the kitchen of the home they rented from Appellee Derrick
Swinton (“Landlord”), Landlord counterclaims for unpaid rent and costs of minor
cosmetic work and repairs totaling $7,235. On May 23, 2024, upon motion of
Landlord, default judgment was entered as to Ms. Milbourne, with damages to be
proven on the day of trial.!

The nature of the proceedings in the JP Court rendered the pleadings in this
case inherently askew,” and the precise nature of each parties’ claims was further
muddled by the pro se parties lack of understanding of the Court’s rules. The Court,
in its discretion, afforded considerable leeway to ensure each party’s rights were

protected and that the case was heard on its merits.

| The Court notes that, while default judgment was entered as to Landlord’s claims against Ms.
Milbourne, no motion was made to extinguish her claims against Landlord. However, at trial,
Ms. Milbourne failed to present any evidence in support of her claims against Landlord. As
such, her claims are considered waived.

2 The parties both initiated separate suits in the JP Court relating to their landlord-tenant
relationship. Douglas Milbourne v. Derrick J Swinton, JP13-21-000714 (Feb. 11, 2021);
Derrick Swinton v. Douglas Milbourne and Orquidea Milbourne, JP13-21-000770.(Feb. 16,
2021). The JP Court subsequently consolidated the cases, which created inconsistency with
regards to who was the plaintiff(s) and who was the defendant(s) below—a distinction which
matters on appeal, as a parties initial pleading obligations on appeal are dictated by their status
as the plaintiff-below or the defendant-below. See CCP Civ. RB. 72.3(b).

2
On September 30, 2024, the case proceeded to a trial de novo; three witnesses
testified,? and 40 exhibits were entered into evidence.’ At trial, the Court considered
the following: (i) Landlord’s claim against Tenant for failure to pay rent in the
amount of $5,625; (ii) Landlord’s breach of contract claim against Tenant regarding
the hardwood floors in the amount of $1,610; (iii) Tenants’ claim against Landlord
for double their security deposit, totaling $4,500; (iv) Tenants’ kitchen cleanup claim
against Landlord for $6,000; and (v) damages as to Ms. Milbourne.

FACTS

The Court found substantial issues with the credibility of each witness.’ Their
renditions of events were drenched in contradiction and riddled with frivolous
mockery. As the finder of fact, the Court was charged with reconciling the
inconsistencies in testimony, as reasonably as possible, so as to make one

harmonious story out of it all.° This is that story:

The parties—Landlord and Tenants—were the only witnesses to testify at trial.

4 Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 through 24 and Defendant’s Exhibits 1 through 16 were received into
evidence, with the help of the Court. Both parties in this matter appeared Pro Se, the Court was
mindful to this fact and afforded leeway “‘to allow the matter to be determined on its merits.”
Jackson v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 1986 WL 11546, at *2 (Del. Super Sept. 24, 1986).

5 Tauber v. Rodriguez, 2014 WL 12684743, at *4 (Del. Com. Pl. Aug. 8, 2014); Pencader
Associates, LLC v. Synergy Direct Mortg. Inc., 2010 WL 2681862, at *3 (Del. Super. June 30,
2010)(“it is the Court’s role to resolve the conflicts in witnesses’ testimony and weigh their
credibility”).

6 Mullin v. Ascetta, 2021 WL 4272063, at *2 (Del. Super. Sept. 20, 2021); /nterim Healthcare,
Inc. v. Spherion Corp., 884 A.2d 513, 546 (Del. Super. Feb. 4, 2005).

3
On January 20, 2020, the parties executed a rental lease agreement (the
“T_ease”) pursuant to which Tenants agreed to rent the home owned by Landlord (the
“Property”) from February 15, 2020, through February 14, 2021, for a monthly rate
of $2,250, plus a security deposit in the amount of $2,250. Tenants further agreed
to paint the Property and “make minor cosmetic repairs including resurfacing and
staining the hardwood floors.”’ In exchange, Tenants’ rent was reduced by $500 for
the first six months of their tenancy, for a total reduction of $3,000.

With the consent of Landlord, Tenants moved into the Property before the start
of the Lease term to allow them advance opportunity to perform the painting and
cosmetic repairs; yet, even with the early move-in, Landlord had the Property
professionally cleaned prior to their arrival. Save for the painting and cosmetic fixes
described in the Lease, the Property was clean and prepped for painting at the time
Tenants moved in.”

Although the Property was in a clean and habitable condition, various
conventional maintenance needs arose in the initial months of Tenants’ residency.
Importantly, Landlord was not inattentive to Tenants’ reported issues. For example,

upon notice, Landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to replace the

7 Def. Ex. 1

8 Neither party testified as to the exact date Tenants moved into the Property.

9 Throughout his testimony, Tenant invariably described the Property as being in
disarray/disrepair and being beautiful. Photographs introduced into evidence by Tenant
showed the Property as being clean and prepped for painting. PI. Ex. 1, 2, 22.

4
dishwasher; fix the faucets in the main bathroom; remove a tree that appeared to be
a safety hazard; and resurface the driveway with blacktop.

The routine maintenance inconveniences gave way to a more significant issue
in November 2020, when the kitchen sink overflowed with grey water. Landlord
promptly sent a plumber to the Property to address the issue. The plumber’s invoice
shows that he cleared a blockage and prescribed that an enzyme drain cleaner be
used on a bi-monthly basis.'° In all, the plumbing work cost $400, which was paid
by Tenant directly; that payment was later offset by a $400 deduction in rent.

Unfortunately, that was not the last time grey water bubbled up at the Property;
it happened again in January 2021. Landlord had the issue resolved by a
professional, but Tenant again took on the task of cleaning up the grey water himself.
Also, the cleanup involved use of chemical cleaners, the odors of which Tenants
found to be highly offensive.

Notably, Tenants were not the only ones inconvenienced by home
maintenance and repair-related issues. Despite agreeing to resurface and re-stain the
hardwood floors—which, coupled with the painting of the walls, afforded Tenants a

rent reduction of $3,000''—Tenants never executed the work. Consequently,

10 Pl. Ex, 21. The invoice further notes that “water restoration” was needed to remedy the
overflowed grey water, at an estimated cost of $3,000—but, the area had already been cleaned
by the customer, Tenant. However, the invoice was admitted only for purposes of establishing
that Tenant paid the plumber $400 directly; Tenant failed to present a witness to testify as to
the content of the invoice and the meaning of “water restoration”.

11 Per the Lease, Tenants received a $500 rent reduction for a period of 6 months, totaling $3,000.

5
Landlord hired a flooring company to sand and stain the hardwood floors, for which
he paid $1,610.

By the end of the Lease term, the relationship between Landlord and Tenants
had become markedly acrimonious,'* and Tenants stopped making their monthly
rental payments as of January 15, 2021. Nevertheless, when the Lease ended on
February 15, 2021, Tenants did not vacate the premises. Rather, they continued to
live at the Property until March 30, 2021, attributing their 45-day delay in departure
toa snowstorm. By the time Tenants vacated the Property, they owed back rent in
the amount of $5,625.!°

DISCUSSION

In civil actions, the party asserting the claim must prove each element of the
claim by a preponderance of the evidence.'* The Delaware Supreme Court has
described the preponderance of the evidence as “[t]he side on which the greater

weight of the evidence is found.”’’ It is “proof that something is more likely than

12 Frustrated by the maintenance/repair-related issues and Landlord’s handling of sdame, Tenants
lodged a complaint with code enforcement authorities. February 1, 2021, Landlord received a
letter from a code enforcement officer from New Castle County addressing a complaint filed
by the Tenant in an attempt to incur housing violations upon the Residence. However, it is
unclear what, if any, alleged violation was cited in this letter.

13. The total of back rent owed represents Tenants last scheduled rental payment of $2,250, plus
payment for the 45 days the continued to reside at the Property beyond the Lease term, at a
prorated rate of $75/day.

14 Sullo v. Kousournas, 2010 WL 718666, at *6 (Del. Super. Feb. 3, 2010).

13 Fletcher v. Shahan, 2002 WL 499883 (Del. Super. March 6, 2002) (quoting Barnett v. Division
of Motor Vehicles, 514 A.2d 1145, 1147 (Del.1986) (citations omitted)).

6
not. It means that certain evidence, when compared to the evidence opposed to it,
has the more convincing force and makes you believe that something is more likely
true than not.”

All of the claims before the Court sound in contract. To prevail on a claim for
breach of contract, the plaintiff must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that: (1) a contract existed between the parties; (2) breach of an obligation
imposed under the contract; and (3) damages resulting from that breach.!®

The Court finds that the Lease was a binding contractual agreement between
the parties.'7_ Thus, in analyzing each parties’ claims, the Court must consider
whether breach of that contract occurred and, if so, whether damages were proven
with reasonable certainty.'®

(i) Landlord’s Unpaid Rent Claim
Landlord seeks compensation for the arrears of rent owed by Tenants.
Notably, Tenants did not dispute that they were obligated to pay rent in the amount
of $2,250 per month, nor do they dispute that such payments were not tendered for
the final month of the Lease and the 45-days they remained beyond the Lease term.

Therefore, the Court finds in favor of Landlord as to his claim for unpaid rent.

16 VLIW Techn. LLC v. Hewlett Packard Co., 840 A.2d 606, 612 (Del. 2012); Interim
Healthcare, Inc. v. Spherion Corp., 884 A.2d 513, 548 (Del. Super. 2005).
17 Tn a stark display of the uncredible nature of his testimony, Tenant denied ever signing the

Lease, only to moments later admit to the contrary.
18 Pharmathene, Inc. v. SIGA Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 4813553, at *11 (Del. Ch. Nov. 23, 2010).

7
Landlord is entitled to the unpaid rent for the period of January 15 to March 30,
2021, in the amount of $5,625.00.
(ii) Landlord’s Breach of Contract Claim Regarding the Hardwood Floors

As a condition of the Lease, the first six months of rent was to be reduced by
$500 in exchange for Tenants completing, among other things, minor cosmetic
repairs including resurfacing and staining the hardwood floors. Landlord claims that
Tenants never performed nor paid for the floor alterations.

Pursuant to the Lease, it was incumbent upon Tenants to resurface and stain
the floors. It is undisputed that the floors were resurfaced and stained by a licensed
contractor paid for by Landlord. No evidence was presented that the Tenant ever paid
more rent than that was required by the Lease to compensate for the failure to do the
floors. Additionally, no argument was made in regard to striking the rent reduction
as a result of the floor refinishing provision being unfulfilled. Thus, the Court finds
that Tenant breached the conditions of the lease and Landlord is entitled to recover
the damages resulting therefrom, i.e., the cost of staining and resurfacing the floors
in the amount of $1,610.

(iii) Tenant’s Security Deposit Claim
The Lease provides, in Section IV, the Tenant shall pay the sum of $2,250 to

the Landlord as a security deposit and Landlord will return the deposit “less any
amounts deducted.”!? Additionally, the Landlord will hold the deposit “pursuant to
applicable laws or regulations.””° Pursuant to 25 Del. C. § 5514(b):

“Each security deposit shall be placed by the landlord in

an escrow bank account in a federally-insured banking

institution with an office that accepts deposits within the

State. Such account shall be designated as a security

deposit account and shall not be used in the operation of

any business by the landlord.”

During trial, Landlord admitted that the security deposit was not held in
escrow, rather it was deposited into a personal PNC bank account. Additionally,
Tenant introduced Landlord’s answers to interrogatories, at trial, which show that
Landlord admits to using the security deposit to pay the mortgage on the property.
Thus, Landlord violated § 5514(b) by failing to hold the deposit in an escrow
account.

Tenant argues that Landlord’s mishandling of the deposit entitles him to
double the security deposit under § 5514(b). However, § 5514(g)(1-2) provides
double the security deposit as a penalty only when the landlord fails to remit the
deposit within 20 days from the expiration of the agreement, or when landlord fails

to disclose the location of the deposit within 20 days of a written request. Here,

Landlord is not alleged to have failed to do either; rather, it is alleged that the deposit

19 Def. Ex. 1 at 3.
20 Td.
was held in a personal account and used to pay the mortgage. Under §5514(g)(2),
there is no prescribed penalty for the violations alleged.

Therefore, based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that even though
the Landlord violated the terms of the Lease and § 5514(b) the Tenant is not entitled
to a remedy for the violations.

(iv) Tenant’s Kitchen Clean Up Claim

On two occasions—first in November 2020, and later in January 2021—the
kitchen sink overflowed with grey water that poured into the kitchen. While it is
undisputed Tenant cleaned up the grey water, evidence was not introduced to explain
how to calculate the value of the cleanup cost. Nonetheless, Tenant argues the value
of each cleanup is $3,000 per cleanup, for a total of $6,000.

In support of this claim, Tenant produced a photo of a computer screen that
show a QuickBooks entry titled “Doug’s Detail” (the “Entry”). The Entry provides
a list of tasks/services and costs for each, specifically: “Odor Enhancement Deep
Steam cleaning gun the gray out of Kitchen & Basement 10 Hr AT $150.00 & High
Quality disinfected Spray Gun At $150.00 a Hr November $3000 & January $3000
11 Welwyn rd Newark de 19711.” However, the entry was self-serving and
unverifiable; the Entry was created by Tenant, and he offered no factual basis to

support the self-generated cost figures. Therefore, the Court affords no weight to

this evidence.

10
Based on the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the value of the water
cleanup cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. As such, Tenant failed to
satisfy his burden of proving damages by the preponderance of the evidence.”’

(v) Damages as to Ms. Milbourne

By Order dated May 24, 2024, the Court entered default judgment as to Ms.
Milbourne, with damages to be determined at trial. As described above, the Court is
satisfied that Landlord proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered
damages of $5,625.00 for unpaid rent, and $1,610 for the resurfacing and staining of
the floor, for a total of $7,235.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, judgement is hereby entered in favor of Derrick

Swinton and against Douglas Milbourne and Orquidea Milbourne in the

(CFS

Robert H. Surles,
Judge

amount of $7,235.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 sullo v. Kousournas, 2010 WL 718666, at *6 (Del. Super. Feb. 3, 2010).
11