Jaraad Watson v. Elizabeth Sullivan

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

JARAAD WATSON, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) C.A. No: CPU4-21-004447
)
ELIZABETH SULLIVAN, )
)
Appellee. )
Submitted: May 14, 2024
Decided: September 23, 2024
Jaraad Watson Elizabeth Sullivan
1307 Radford Road P.O. Box 10771
Wilmington, DE 19803 Wilmington, DE 19850
Self-represented Self-represented
Defendant-Below/ Appellant Plaintiff-Below/ Appellee

DECISION AFTER TRIAL

Danberg, C.J.
Defendant-Below/Appellant Jaraad Watson brings this appeal de novo from a
decision of the Justice of the Peace Court dated December 15, 2021, in which
judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff-Below/Appellee Elizabeth Sullivan.’ This
action stems from a furtive rental arrangement between Mr. Watson, the landlord,
and Ms. Sullivan, the tenant. In her complaint, Ms. Sullivan seeks to recover for her
unreturned security deposit ($1,500), improperly imposed rental charges ($6,350),
and other unenumerated harm, totaling $25,000.

A bench trial was held on March 14, 2024,? during which the Court heard
testimony from Mr. Watson and Ms. Sullivan and received documents into
evidence.* At the conclusion of trial, the Court reserved decision. This is the Court’s
Final Decision After Trial.

FACTS
In 2017, Mr. Watson acquired possession of a property located in Wilmington,

Delaware (the “Property”), which he wanted to sell or rent. In July of 2017, Mr.

1 10 Del. C. § 9570.

This case was intended to be tried on the same day as another matter involving the same parties,
Sullivan v. Watson, 2023 WL 3487773, Ca. No. CPU4-21-004463. Trial in this case was to
proceed first and, for efficiency, the evidence presented would be incorporated in the second
case. However, the parties were both self-represented, and the presentation of evidence in this
matter took the entire day; so, trial in the second matter was continued to August 13, 2024.
While the Court took this matter under advisement at the conclusion of trial on May 14, 2024,
it held its decision until the conclusion of the second case, and until decisions could be issued
simultaneously.

Both parties submitted binders of various documents into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 and
Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, a payment history printout, was also received into
evidence.
Watson was put in contact with Ms. Sullivan by Daryl Stroy, who eventually became
his property manager. Ms. Sullivan needed to secure housing by the end of the
month, and Mr. Watson agreed to rent the Property to her effective August 1, 2017.
Ms. Sullivan was enrolled in a housing assistance program administered by
Wilmington Housing Authority (“WHA”), pursuant to which her rent was largely
covered by a housing voucher (the “Voucher Program”).* However, landlords under
the Voucher Program are contractually bound by certain terms and conditions,
including provisions pertaining to rental rates. The WHA determines the appropriate
rental rate (the “Approved Rate” or “Rate”), and the landlord is prohibited from
charging rental fees beyond the Approved Rate.” The WHA set Ms. Sullivan’s
Approved Rate at $1,050 per month. Additionally, the WHA provides eligible
individuals with utility reimbursement; in May 2019, the WHA set Ms. Sullivan’s
utility reimbursement at $77 per month,° but that figure was later reduced to $44 per

month.’

4 Ms. Sullivan explained that the portion of her rent covered by the WHA voucher was issued
directly from WHA to Mr. Watson.

> In addition to setting the Approved Rate, the WHA assesses what portion of that Rate will be
paid by the housing voucher; the portion of rent covered by the voucher is paid directly to the
landlord, and the tenant is responsible for any difference between the voucher payment and the
Approved Rate. Initially, WHA covered $901 per month, leaving Ms. Sullivan responsible
for $149 per month, but it later increased her voucher to cover the entire $1,050 rental
obligation.

6 Pl. Ex. | at B-8.2.

7 Pl. Ex. 1 at B-20 shows that, Ms. Sullivan’s utility reimbursement was $44 per month,
effective September 1, 2020.
A, The Property-related Agreements

To rent to Ms. Sullivan through the Voucher Program, Mr. Watson was
required to contract with WHA, acceding to WHA’s terms and conditions including
the $1,050 Approved Rate and the prohibition on rental charges above the Approved
Rate. Those terms and conditions were memorialized in the Housing Assistance
Payments Contract (“HAP Contract”), which was executed by Mr. Watson and a
WHA representative.’

In addition to the HAP contract, Ms. Sullivan’s rental of the property was
governed by a written agreement between the parties in the form of a WHA Model
Lease (“Lease One”).'!° Lease One depicted the $1,050 monthly rental rate
prominently on the first page. It also outlined the parties’ responsibilities with
regards to utilities, including water; it specified that the landlord (Mr. Watson) would
be responsible for “min” water, while the tenant (Ms. Sullivan) would be responsible
for “excess” water. While the terms “min” and “excess” were not defined in Lease
One, the record indicates that “excess” refers to expenses that exceeded the utility

reimbursement set by the WHA.!! Finally, Lease One specified that Ms. Sullivan

Pl. Ex. 1 at A.
Td.

10 Td.

| Neither party directly confirmed the definition of “min” and “excess.” However, documents
introduced into evidence by Ms. Sullivan demonstrate that, at the very least, Ms. Sullivan
assented to the interpretation that “excess” meant any amount over the utility reimbursement
provided by WHA. For example, a Public Housing Authority Annual Reexamination report
shows that, for the August 1, 2019 through August 1, 2020 period, Ms. Sullivan was assessed

4
was to furnish a security deposit in the amount of $1,050.

To execute Lease One, Ms. Sullivan met with Mr. Stroy at his office, at which
time she was presented with two identical copies of Lease One. According to Ms.
Sullivan, she signed both copies of Lease One; one to be sent to WHA, and one for
Mr. Stroy’s records. Mr. Stroy likewise signed Lease One in his capacity as Mr.
Watson’s property manager.

At trial, Mr. Watson also produced an agreement purportedly signed by Ms.
Sullivan and Mr. Stroy, which was identical to Lease One except that the monthly
rental rate depicted on the first page was $1,200—not $1,050 (“Lease Two”).

B. Ms. Sullivan’s Security Deposit and Rental Payments

At the end of July, as she was preparing to move into the Property, Ms.
Sullivan met with Mr. Watson and Mr. Stroy to furnish the $1,050 security deposit.
Seemingly perplexed, Mr. Watson insisted that the rental rate for the Property was
$1,200—not $1,050. Ms. Sullivan testified that, at that stage, she was “stuck”; she
did not have time to secure alternative housing, and arrangements had been made

for her child’s schooling based upon her expectation that they would be living at the

a utility reimbursement of $44. During that period, Mr. Stroy sent Ms. Sullivan a picture of a
water bill (payment due March 16, 2020) totaling $88.91, along with a message advising that
she owes $44. Ms. Sullivan accented without objection. This exchange between Mr. Stroy and
Ms. Sullivan is consistent with her paying the excess over her $44 utility reimbursement. Thus,
as finder of fact, the Court is satisfied that the term “excess” meant water bills in excess of Ms.
Sullivan’s utility reimbursement rate.

2 Def. Ex. 1.
Property. Believing she had no other option, Ms. Sullivan acquiesced to Mr.
Watson’s demand for $1,200 monthly rental payments, and she furnished a money
order of $1,500 to Mr. Stroy for her security deposit.'?

From August 2017 through March 2019, Mr. Watson received $1,200 per
month in rent for the Property. The $150 difference between the Approved Rate
($1,050) and the amount charged ($1,200) (the “Overage Charge”) was typically
paid in cash to Mr. Watson via Mr. Stroy. In April 2019, the rental rate was increased
to $1,300, but the payment structure remained the same; the $250 monthly Overage
Charge was generally paid in cash to Mr. Watson via Mr. Stroy. Ms. Sullivan
testified that, in all, she paid $6,350 in Overage Charges, the sum of $150 per month
for 19 months plus $250 per month for 14 months.'*

C. Ms. Sullivan’s Tenancy and Vacating of the Property

Ms. Sullivan testified that, in addition to the monthly rental overage payments,
she incurred various expenses due to Mr. Watson’s dilatory maintenance of the

property (the “Property-Related Expenses”). She paid $100 for the installation of

13° The memo line specifies that the money order was for Elizabeth Sullivan’s security deposit.
Pl. Ex. 1-A,

14 Ms. Sullivan testified that she paid $150 per month in Overage Charges from August 2017
through March 2019, which calculates to 20 months total. She also testified that she paid $250
Overage Charges from April 2019 through June 2020, which calculates to 15 months total.
However, in her Complaint and throughout trial, Ms. Sullivan asserted that her Overage
Charges claim was for 19 months at $150 per month ($2,850) plus 14 months at $250 per
month ($3,500). As such, the Court will consider Ms. Sullivan’s claim for Overage Charges
as $6,350, consistent with her pleadings and her testimony presented at trial.

6
fire detectors, which were required for the house to pass inspection, and $15 to
replace a toilet seat.'> When Mr. Stroy failed to resolve a rodent infestation issue,
Ms. Sullivan incurred $300 in extermination expenses. Additionally, Ms. Sullivan
described paying $400 for a P.O. Box she began renting towards the end of her
tenancy, which she maintained for approximately four years.!° Ms. Sullivan also
testified that she was improperly required to pay water bills totaling $407."

In November 2017, the hot water heater exploded which, Ms. Sullivan
claimed, caused damage to her personal property to the tune of $3,000. She did not
specify the items damaged or the value of the items damage, nor did she otherwise
provide a basis for her calculation of damages; rather, Ms. Sullivan merely testified
that she suffered “$3,000 in damages due to the mold, mildew and water that
consistently came through the basement that damaged all of my property . . . that
couldn't be replaced so I had to get rid of that.” Ms. Sullivan also incurred expenses

in the amount of $25 for special pickup of the damaged water heater.

15 Ms. Sullivan testified that she paid $30 for the toilet seat replacement but was reimbursed for
only 50% of the expense.

16 When asked how the expenses related to Mr. Watson, Ms. Sullivan stated “because had none
of this have happened, J wouldn't've accrued any of these fees.”

17 Ms. Sullivan referred to a receipt for payment dated February 7, 2020, which shows that she
paid $87 for “water bill.” However, she did not point to the corresponding water invoice her
payment was intended to cover, and she did not otherwise demonstrate that the $87 payment
improperly encompassed the “min” which, per Lease One, was the landlord’s responsibility.
Further, Ms. Sullivan did not account for the remaining $320 of her claim for water bill
payments; she did not identify the dates, amount, or form of any water bill payments beyond
the $87 receipt.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Ms. Sullivan was no longer able to pay
the Overage Charges, and the relationship between the parties quickly devolved. In
December 2020, Mr. Stroy filed an action in JP Court for back rent and summary
possession; however, the matter was dismissed.

Thereafter, in April of 2021, Ms. Sullivan provided Mr. Watson with a written
60-day notice of her intent to vacate the Property by the end of June 2021. As
promised, Ms. Sullivan did vacate the Property on June 30, 2021. Commencing the
following day, she sent multiple written communications to Mr. Watson demanding
the return of her security deposit, to no avail. Later, Mr. Watson contacted Ms.
Sullivan explaining that her security deposit had been used."

Ms. Sullivan also testified as to expenses sustained as a result of, and
subsequent to, her vacating the Property (the “Moving-Related Expenses”). She
asserted that she incurred moving expenses of $3,000, although she did not delineate
the nature of the expenses or provided a basis for her calculation thereof. She also
testified that she was temporarily removed from the Voucher Program because she

was unable to timely secure new housing and, although she was eventually

18 At trial, Ms. Sullivan testified to a letter she received from Mr. Watson regarding the
disposition of her security deposit. However, the letter was not included in the binder of
exhibits originally submitted to the Court. The record reflects that, during trial, a copy of the
letter was made and presented to the Court. However, the record does not suggest that the
letter was formally admitted into evidence, and a copy of said letter is not in the Court’s
possession. Regardless, the Court finds Ms. Sullivan’s testimony as to the letter to be credible.

8
reinstated, she was unable to secure permanent housing.'? She claimed that, because
of her lack of permanent housing, she was required to rent a storage unit, the cost of
which totaled $11,029.06. Also, because the electric account was not timely
transferred to the subsequent tenant, Ms. Sullivan was charged $15.25 for electric

expenses incurred by the new tenant.

PARTIES’ POSITIONS

It is Ms. Sullivan’s position that Mr. Watson is liable for $6,350 in wrongfully
imposed Overage Charges, $3,000 in double damages for her unreturned security
deposit, $3,862.25 for the Property-Related Expenses, and $14,029.06 for the
Moving-Related Expenses.

Mr. Watson does not dispute that he received rental payments of $1,200 to
$1,300 over the course of Ms. Sullivan’s tenancy, but he claims to have had no
knowledge of the $1,050 rate set forth in Lease One or the $1,050 Approved Rate
and prohibition on overage charging in the HAP Contract. He argues that the parties
agreed to the $1,200 rental rate at the outset. Regarding the security deposit, Mr.
Watson notes that the $1,500 money order for the deposit was made to Mr. Stroy,
and he maintains that he never received the deposit nor was he aware of its existence.
As to the property damaged by the water heater explosion, Mr. Watson argued that

“most of” the property in the basement when the water heater exploded belonged to

19 Ms. Sullivan testified that she has remained unhoused since she vacated the Property.
9
his mother—not Ms. Sullivan. Mr. Watson raised no argument as to the remaining
Property-Related Expenses or the Moving-Related Expenses.

DISCUSSION

The Court notes that the parties both proceeded pro se and the claims and
defenses they raised were not pled or presented with the clarity expected of a law-
trained practitioner. While not bound by “every strained interpretation of the
allegations proposed by the plaintiff,’ the Court, in its discretion, afforded
considerable latitude to both parties in their pleadings and presentation of evidence
at trial.”°

At first blush, Ms. Sullivan’s claims against Mr. Watson seem to be strictly
derived from a written agreement between the parties. However, although
masquerading as a straightforward breach of contract case, Ms. Sullivan’s claims are
convoluted by the fact that neither party acted above reproach in this rental
arrangement.

I. Ms. Sullivan’s Claim for Overcharge Payments
Two rental agreements were present at trial: Lease One and Lease Two.

Although both were purportedly signed by the parties on the same date, they cannot

20 Mikkilineni v. PayPal, Inc., 2021 WL 2763903, at *5 (Del. Super. July 1, 2021)(quoting
Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075, 1083 (Del. 2001)); Lechliter v. Del. Dept. of Natural
Resources, 2016 WL 878121, at *2 (Del. Ch. March 8, 2016).

10
both apply as they contain conflicting price terms.”! Therefore, the Court must
determine which agreement controls and whether that agreement encompasses the
entirety of the parties’ landlord-tenant dealings.

Ms. Sullivan acknowledges that she signed two rental agreements but
explained that she did so because two copies were needed—one for Mr. Stroy and
one for WHA. Ms. Sullivan maintained that the agreements she executed were
identical copies of Lease One, meaning both executed documents depicted $1,050
as the monthly rental rate—a rate consistent with the Approved Rate set forth in the
HAP Contract. Notably, Mr. Watson does not deny the existence of Lease One, but
maintains that he was never in possession of Lease One, as evidenced by the fact
that his name and address are incorrect as written. Rather, he insists that Lease Two
is the sole agreement submitted to him, and he insists that he was wholly unaware
of Lease One and the rate provisions of the HAP Contract because Mr. Stroy “was
keeping all the records.” Simply put, Mr. Watson’s theory of the case is that Mr.
Stroy and Ms. Sullivan conspired together to commit fraud; however, the victim and
beneficiary of the fraud remains unclear, since it resulted in Ms. Sullivan paying
$6,350 above what she was legally required to pay.

The Court finds Mr. Watson’s theory of the case untenable from a factual

*! For clarity, both Lease One and Lease Two were signed by Mr. Stroy, not Mr. Watson—
however, Mr. Stroy signed in his capacity as property manager for Mr. Watson.

11
standpoint. As stated above, the Court is hard pressed to find a benefit inuring to
Ms. Sullivan from her alleged fraud. Moreover, Mr. Watson’s portrayal of himself
as an innocent victim in this fraudulent scheme cannot survive a review of the
evidence, which establishes that Mr. Watson knew or was required to know that the
rental agreement was capped at the $1,050 Approved Rate. The Court finds Mr.
Watson’s claim that he was unaware of the Approved Rate to be disingenuous at best.
The Approved Rate was communicated to Mr. Watson on numerous occasions,
including the HAP Contract that was signed by Mr. Watson himself. The fact that
Mr. Watson did not retain a copy of that agreement does not release him from his
contractual obligations thereunder. Further, the Approved Rate was re-
communicated in correspondence provided to Mr. Watson by the WHA midway
through Ms. Sullivan’s tenancy. Finally, Mr. Watson lacks any factual basis to
challenge Ms. Sullivan’s testimony that the agreements she signed were identical in
all respects, including the price term, because Mr. Watson was not present when the
agreements were signed. As such, the Court finds that Lease One constitutes the
written agreement between the parties.

Having found that Lease One is controlling, the Court must consider what
impact, if any, the parties’ years-long dealings outside of the terms of Lease One
have on Ms. Sullivan’s ability to recover for the Overcharge Payments. In other

words, did Ms. Sullivan’s assent to pay Overage Charges obfuscate her right to

12
recover for breach of contract?

Delaware law generally permits oral modification of written agreements.”
Indeed, the evidence adduced at trial indicates an agreement to pay rent beyond
$1,050. Ms. Sullivan made Overage Charge payments with no record of objection
for the first 33 months of her tenancy, stopping only when the COVID-19 pandemic
rendered her financially unable to keep up with the payments. By her own testimony,
she was aware of the prohibition against paying beyond the Approved Rate and,
while her initial willingness to pay Overage Charges may have been attributable to
Mr. Watson’s coercive conduct and her urgent housing need, it cannot be said that
she paid the Overage Charges under duress for the entire 33-month period.”
However, the Court is hesitant to enforce an oral modification of a written contract
under these circumstances, where enforcement would render one party unjustly
enriched to the detriment of the other party.

While a claim for unjust enrichment is typically available only in the absence
of a binding contract, Delaware courts permit recovery for unjust enrichment “if
‘[t]he contract itself is not necessarily the measure of [the] plaintiff's right where the

claim is premised on an allegation that the contract arose from wrongdoing (such as

22 Reeder v. Sanford School, Inc., 397 A.2d 139, 141 (Del. Super. 1979).

23 Even if the oral agreement was entered under duress, it would have been ratified by Ms.
Sullivan’s continued assent. See Standard General L.P. v. Charney, 2017 WL 6498063, at *16
(Del. Super. Dec. 19, 2017)(“Delaware Courts have noted that a party may ratify a contract it
agreed to in duress by accepting the benefits flowing from it or failing to challenge it for any
considerable length of time”).

13
breach of fiduciary duty or fraud) or mistake and the [defendant] has been unjustly

24 That is precisely the

enriched by the benefits flowing from the contract.
circumstance here—by oral agreement, Mr. Watson fraudulently imposed Overage
Charges, despite the WHA’s unequivocal prohibition on such charges, resulting in
benefit to Mr. Watson and at Ms. Sullivan’s expense. Therefore, the Court will
consider whether Ms. Sullivan may recover the Overage Charges on an unjust
enrichment theory.

“Unjust enrichment is ‘the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another,
or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles
of justice or equity and good conscience.” To prevail on a claim for unjust
enrichment under Delaware law, the Plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence: “(1) an enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a relation between the
enrichment and the impoverishment; [and] (4) the absence of justification.””°

Indeed, with regards to the Overage Charges, Ms. Sullivan has satisfied her

burden of proof. By all accounts, Mr. Watson was enriched—and Ms. Sullivan was

24 Talkdesk, Inc. v. DM Trans, LLC, 2024 WL 2799307, at *11 (Del. Super. May 31,
2024)(quoting LVI Grp. Invs., LLC v. NCM Grp. Hldgs., LLC, 2018 WL 1559936, at *16 (Del.
Ch. Mar. 28, 2018)).

25 Inre Verizon Ins. Coverage Appeals, 222 A.3d 566, 577 (Del. 2019) (citing Nemec v. Shrader,
991 A.2d 1120, 1130 (Del. 2010)).

26 State ex rel. Jennings v. Monsanto Company, 299 A.3d 372, at 390 (explaining that,
traditionally, an unjust enrichment claim requires a showing that no adequate remedy exists at
law, but “unjust enrichment is historically a legal, not an equitable, claim” thus “absence of an
adequate remedy at law is required only if an unjust enrichment claim is brought in the Court
of Chancery and there is no other independent basis for equitable jurisdiction”).

14
impoverished—by the Overage Charges. She demonstrated that the Overage
Charges were contrary to the terms of the Voucher Program and were imposed
without justification. Therefore, the Court finds that Ms. Sullivan is entitled to
recovery of the Overage Charges in the amount of $6,350.

II. Ms. Sullivan’s Claim for the Security Deposit

Ms. Sullivan seeks double damages for Mr. Watson’s failure to timely return
her security deposit or an itemized list of damages and costs of repair as required
under 25 Del. C. § 5514. The record reflects that Ms. Sullivan tendered a $1,500
money order dated July 26, 2017, for her security deposit. Mr. Watson denies having
ever received a security deposit from Ms. Sullivan, emphasizing that the money
order was made payable to Mr. Stroy. Mr. Watson also questions the purpose of the
money order, as the amount of the money order ($1,500) differed from the Approved
Rate ($1,050) and the actual rent rate ($1,200).

The Court finds Mr. Watson’s argument unpersuasive. The memo line of the
money order clearly states that it was for Ms. Sullivan’s security deposit. Although
it was made payable to Mr. Stroy, Mr. Watson’s own testimony established that Mr.
Stroy acted as his agent, regularly receiving Property-related payments on his behalf.
Moreover, while Ms. Sullivan admitted into evidence multiple communications
from herself to Mr. Watson demanding return of the security deposit, there is a

notable absence in the record of any communications from Mr. Watson denying the

15
existence of such security deposit. Finally, the Court finds credible Ms. Sullivan’s
testimony that Mr. Watson later reached out with an explanation as to how the
security deposit was used. Therefore, the Court finds that, under 25 Del. C. §
5514(g)(2), Ms. Sullivan is entitled to damages in the amount of $3,000, which
represents double the amount of her security deposit.
Ill. Ms. Sullivan’s Claim for Property-Related Expenses
Ms. Sullivan testified that she incurred the following expenses related to her
tenancy of the Property:
e Installation of fire detectors - $100
e Toilet seat replacement - $15
e Special pickup of water heater - $25
e Extermination expenses - $300
e Water bills - $407
e Personal property damage - $3,000
e P.O. Box rental - $400
Ms. Sullivan’s claims for Property-Related Expenses are contractually
derived.?” To prevail on a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract;

27 See NPC Intern., Inc. v. Rehoboth Mall Ltd. Partnership, 2007 WL 2473323, at *3 (Del. Super.
July 19, 2007)(“In Delaware, the rights and remedies of landlords and tenants are governed by
contract law principles”).

16
(2) that the defendant breached a contractual obligation thereunder; and (3) as a
result, plaintiff suffered damages.”®

The Court finds that Ms. Sullivan has satisfied her burden of proof with
respect to the installation of fire detectors, toilet seat replacement, special pickup of
water heater, and extermination expenses. As discussed above, Ms. Sullivan
demonstrated that the controlling agreement between the parties is Lease One.”
Notably, Mr. Watson did not contest these expenses, and the Court is satisfied that
such expenses were Mr. Watson’s obligation under Lease One.*? Further, Ms.
Sullivan proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, the damages she suffered as to
each expense. As such, the Court finds that Ms. Sullivan is entitled to damages in
the amount of $440 for these expenses.

Unlike the fire extinguishers, toilet seat, specialty pickup, and extermination
expenses, Mr. Watson did contest Ms. Sullivan’s allegations regarding the water
bills and damage to her personal property. As to the water bills, the Court finds that

Ms. Sullivan failed to demonstrate that her payment of water bills constituted a

8 Braga Investment & Advisory, LLC v. Yenni Income Opportunities Fund I, L.P., 2020 WL
3042236, at *7 (Del. Ch. June 8, 2020); VLIW Techn., LLC v. Hewlett Packard Co., 840 A.2d
606, 612 (Del. 2012).

29 While the Court finds that the parties orally modified the price term set forth in Lease One,
neither party suggested that the remaining terms of Lease One were modified.

30 Lease One provides, in relevant part, that Mr. Watson “shall maintain the [Property],
equipment .. . and facilities, to provide the decent, safe and sanitary housing” and “shall
respond in a reasonable time to calls by the tenant for services to maintain the dwelling unit.”
Further, Lease One provides that Mr. Watson “shall provide Extermination services as
conditions may require.”

17
breach of the parties’ agreement. Lease One provided that Ms. Sullivan would be
responsible for any “excess” water bills. Thus, to demonstrate a breach, Ms. Sullivan
must establish that her water bill payments were not the “excess” contemplated by
the Lease. Ms. Sullivan failed to make such showing.?!

Regarding her claim for damage to personal property, Ms. Sullivan failed
satisfy her burden of proof as to damages. At trial, Ms. Sullivan estimated the
damage to her property totaled $3,000. However, she did not describe what property
was damaged, much less the bases for her valuation of the damaged property. Since
these damages were not proven beyond mere speculation, the Court finds that Ms.
Sullivan has not satisfied her burden of proof and no damages are awarded for
property damage claim.

Similarly, Ms. Sullivan failed to provide any legal basis for her $400 claim for
expenses incurred in renting a P.O. Box. Therefore, no damages are awarded for the

P.O. Box Rental.

31 Ms. Sullivan referred to the $87 water bill receipt as the sole proof that she improperly paid
water bills. However, she did not point to the corresponding water invoice her $87 payment
was intended to cover, and she did not otherwise demonstrate that the $87 payment improperly
encompassed the “min” which, per Lease One, was the landlord’s responsibility. Moreover,
even if the $87 payment fell within the “min” and thus was Mr. Watson’s obligation—a
conclusion the Court cannot reach based on the evidence presented—Ms. Sullivan did not
account for the remaining $320 of her claim for water bill payments; she did not identify the
dates or amounts of any water bill payments beyond the $87 receipt.

18
IV. Ms. Sullivan’s Claim for Moving-Related Related Expenses

Ms. Sullivan points to three moving-related expenses incurred: the July 2021
electric expense, moving expenses, and storage expenses. As to the July 2021
electric expense, Ms. Sullivan demonstrated that she incurred a charge of $15.25 for
use of electricity in July 2021, after she had already vacated the premises. Therefore,
the Court finds that Ms. Sullivan is entitled to $15.25 for the July 2021 electric
expense.

As to the remaining expenses, Ms. Sullivan argues that she is entitled to
recover $3,000 for moving expenses, and $11,029.06 for storage expenses.
However, although a summary possession action was filed in the Justice of the Peace
Court in December of 2020, that action was ultimately dismissed. By her own
testimony, Ms. Sullivan left on her own volition. It is clear, the landlord-tenant
relationship had deteriorated to the point of litigation involving acrimonious
exchanges. It is also clear Mr. Watson had voiced his intention to force Ms.
Sullivan’s ouster; however, his legal maneuvering had failed. Ms. Sullivan had
prevailed. Only thereafter did she notify Mr. Watson in writing of her intent to vacate
the premises by June 30, 2021. Ms. Sullivan has not provided any legal basis to
support her claim for expenses incurred as a result of her decision to vacate the

premises. Therefore, no damages are awarded for the moving and storage expenses.

19
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Ms.
Sullivan and against Mr. Watson in the amount of $9,805.25, which represents
$6,350 for Overcharge Payments, $3,000 for double the amount of the security
deposit, and $440 for Property-Related Expenses, and $15.25 for July 2021 electric

expenses.

grable Carl C./Danberg,
Chief Judgé

20