La Marr Gunn v. Christine Blackmon

COURT OF CON|N‘|ON PLEAS

FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KENT county couRTHousE
oovER, oELAwARr-;199o1
PHoNE: (302; 735-3900

CHARLES W. WELCH, |||

JUDGE
February 6, 2014

Adarn M. Perza, Esq. La Mar Gunn

Lynn, l\/lay & Perza, P.A. 2 Old North Road, #502
34 'l`he Green Dover, DE 19934
Dover, DE 19901 Pro se Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant

RE: La Mar Gunn v. Christine Blackmon
C.A. No.: CPU5-13-000866

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss

Dear Mr. Perza and Mr. Gunn,

This matter involves an appeal from the Justice of the Peace Court filed by
Appellant/Piaintiff Below, La Mar Gunn. Appeliee/Defendant Below, Christine Biacl<mon, has
filed a motion to dismiss the case. Mr. Gunn has filed a response to Ms. Blacl<;nion’s motion and
a motion for summary judgment Next, l\/Is. Biaokmon filed a motion to strike Mr. Gunn’s
motion for surnma1y judgment on the grounds that it was not ripe for consideration. Mr. Gunn
responded by filing a response to Ms. Blackmon’s motion to strike and a motion for sanctions

Procedurally, Mr. Gunn’s motions are not ripe for the Court’s consideration and are
denied Therefore, on january IO, 2014, the Court heard facts and argument limited to Ms.
Blackmon’s motion to dismiss and reserved decision 'l`his correspondence constitutes the
Court’s decision denying Ms. Blackmon’s motion to dismiss in part and granting it in part.

FAC'I`S

Prior to the current dispute, Mr. Gunn and Ms. Biackmon were parties to two civil actions
in the justice of the Peace Court involving Ms. Blackmon’s lease to Mr. Gunn of a residence

February 6, 2014
Page 2

located in Dover, Delaware (°‘the property"). "l`lie following is a brief suinmary of the coniplex
procedural history of this case.

On july 23, 20]2, Mr. Gunn filed a complaint in the justice of the Peace Court alleging
negligence on the part of his landlord, Ms. Blackrnon.l Mr. Gunn stated he suffered damages as
a result of l\/ls. Blackmon’s failure to cure the accumulation of black mold in the property.

On Atigiist l, 2012, l\/ls. Blacl<mon initiated a summary possession suit for the property
against l\/lr. Gunn and co-tenant, Tasheema Gaiarza ("l\/ls. Galarza"), in the justice of the Peace
Court. 2

()n Septenibei' 7, 2012, the justice of the Peace Court heard Ms. Blackmon’s summary
possession suit.3 'l`he justice of the Peace Court issued l\/ls. Blackmon a writ of possession to the
property in a stipulated judgment ("September 761 Stipulated judgmeiit") which was executed by
both l\/lr. Gunn and Ms. Blackmon. The justice of the Peace Court reserved the issue of damages
to be heard during l\/lr. Gunn’s negligence suit against Ms. Blackmon on September l l, 2012.

On Septeinber ll, 2012, the justice of the Peace Court heard l\/[r. Gunn’s negligence suit
against l\/ls. Biacl<inon. "l`lie justice of the Peace Court awarded Mr. Gunn a total of $20,765.99
in a stipulated judgment ("September ll“` Stipulated judgment") which was executed by both
l\/lr. Gunn and Ms. Blacl<mon. The Septeinber tim Stipulated judgment included a provision
stating “l\/Ir. Gunn waives and releases any cause of action between himself, personal and real,
and l\/ls. Blackinon."

On May 29, 2013, Mr. Gunn filed the present cause of action in the justice of the Peace
Court against Ms. Blacl<;nion for her failure to return his security deposit and failure to repay
unpaid third party expenses related to the property." Ms. Biackmon filed an answer denying all
liability and a motion to dismiss. The justice of the Peace Court issued an order granting Ms.
Blackmon’s motion to dismiss following a hearing The court held that the Septernbei‘ l l“‘
Stipulated judgment entered into by l\/lr. Gunn and l\/ls. Blackmon barred l\/ir. Gunn from
pursuing further cause of action against Ms. Blackmon.

‘11>16-12~003335.
2 JP16-i2-004059.

3 A default judgment was ordered against i\/is. Galarza arising from her failure to appear at the
hearing.

4 11>16_13-003016.

Febriiary 6, 2014
Page 3

l\/lr. Gunn appealed the justice of the Peace Court’s dismissal of his action against l\/ls.

Blacknion to this Court. l\/Ir. Gunn requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor in the
arnount of $4,200, plus interest. i\/ls. Blackmon filed the present motion to disrniss, pursuant to
Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule l2(b)(6). Ms. Blackinon contends that Mr. Gunn ls estopped
from bringing any cause of action against her pursuant to the September ll“‘ Stipulated
judgment entered at the justice of the Peace Court. Mr. Gunn opposes l\/Is. Blackmon’s motion
to dismiss. He asserts that the September l l"’ Stipulated judgment is unrelated to Ms.
Blacl<inon’s return of the security deposit.

DISCUSSION

An appeal from a final judgment is reviewed by this Court de novo. Davia'son v.
Robbins, 2000 WL 33958583, at *12 (Del. Com. Pl. july 25, 2000) (stating when a_,r`udgrnenl is
appealed "the entire cause of action from the trial court" is retried.)', see Cz`l'j) of Wz'lmz'rzgton v.
I?Ianzer, 2013 WL 4829585, at *5 (Del. Com. Pl. l`\/lay 22, 2013) (stating "[t]he lioldiiig ofNej) is
lirnited to an appeal of a denial ofa motion (or application) to vacate.").

In considering motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule
l2(b)(6), "the Court must accept every well~pleaded allegation as true and draw all reasonable
iriterences in the non-movant's favor." Walt'on v. D@Shie!ds, 2013 WL 2325301, at *l (Del.
Super. May 23, 2013). "The Court niust deny the l2(b)(6) inotion if ‘ plaintiff may recover under
any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof."’ fci (citing .S`peace v.
Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978)).

Delaware’s Residential Laridlord-Tenaiit Code obligates a landlord to return either the
full security deposit or an itemized list of damages and estimated cost of repair "[w]ithin 20 days
after the le.rriiinolz`on or expz`rcriz'o)i of any rental agreement." DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 25, § 5514(1']
(ernphasis added). "l~`ailure to reinit the security deposit or the difference between the security
deposit and the amount set forth in the list of damages within 20 days from the expiration or
termination Qfthe rental agreemeal' shall entitle the tenant to double the amount wrongfully
withheld." DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 25, § 55l4(g)(l) (ernphasis added).

ln the present case, l\/ls. Blackmon contends that l\/lr. Gunn waived his right to return of

the security deposit when he signed the September l l‘h Stipulated judgment "l`he Court
disagrees The Septeinber ll"‘ Stipulated judgment stated Mr. Gunn "waives and releases any
cause of action between himseif, personal and real, and l\/Is. Blackmon." (emphasis added). l\/lr.
Gunn did not waive his right to bring a claim for the return of his security deposit. l\/lr. Gunn
only waived and released any currently accrued cause ofaclion between himself and Mr.
Blacl<moii when he signed the Septernber ll“‘ Stipulated j udgment.

l~"`ebrtiary 6, 2014
Page 4

Pursuant to title 25, section 5715 of the Delaware Code, if a landlord brings a successful
action against a tenant for sumniary possession, the relationship between the landlord and tenant
is terminated upon the court’s issuance of a writ of possession. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 25 , § 571 5.
“'l"he issuance of a writ of possession for the removal cfa tenant cancels the agreement under
which the person reinoved held the preinises and annuls the relationship of the landlord and
tenant." I)EL. CODE. ANN. tit. 25, § 57l5(d).

The justice of the Peace Court awarded l\/Is. Blacl<lnon a writ of possession to the
property on Septeiiibei' 7, 2012, giving Ms. Blacl<mon 20 days to return the security deposit to
Mr. Gunn or provide him with an itemized list of damages. l\/Ir. Gunn’s cause of action against
Ms. Blackmon did not accrue until 20 days afler September 7, 2012. Therefore, l\/Ir. Gunn did
not have a cause of action for return of the security deposit on September 1 1, 2012, when he
signed the September 11"' Stipulated judgment waiving and releasing all causes of action against
Ms. Blaclonoii. However, l\/Ir. Gunn did have a cause of action against l\/Is. Blackinon for any
third party expenses arising from repairs to the property on September l l, 2012. As a result, l\/lr.
Gunn did waive his cause of action to recover any third party repairs from Ms. Blackinon when
he signed the September 1 im Stipulated judgment

CONCLUSION

Mr. Gunn did not release his cause of action against i\/ls. Blacl<mon for return cf the
security deposit when he signed the September ll[§` Stipulated judgment; however, l\/lr. Gunn did
release his cause of action against l\/ls. Blackmon for third party expenses related to the property.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Ms. Blackinon’s motion to dismiss must be GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Siiicerely,

rs andreas/l ~/t~a¢~i>£

Charles W. Welch, III

CWW: mck