Danielle Freeman v. Walter G. Scott
CPU4-16-002251
| Del. Ct. Com. Pl. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- Danielle Freeman (tenant) rented 735 Warner St. under a lease and a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract between landlord Walter Scott and Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA); WHA agreed to pay most of the rent.
- WHA inspector identified minor defects; a roof leak and hole in the kitchen ceiling later prompted WHA deputy director Spellman to direct termination of the HAP contract, but no written notice was given to Scott as the HAP contract requires.
- WHA continued payments conditional on repairs; Scott made repairs and received partial payments for Feb–May 2016; Freeman vacated May 1, 2016 and keys were left at the property.
- Freeman claimed she paid the $400 remainder of the $850 security deposit in cash and sought its return; Scott claimed she did not pay it and sought unpaid rent, water bill, and damages.
- Scott re-let the unit July 1, 2016. At trial the Justice of the Peace court (de novo) found credibility for Scott on key issues and reserved decision; this Court entered final judgment awarding Scott damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Freeman) | Defendant's Argument (Scott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the HAP contract (and thus the lease) terminated in mid-February 2016 | WHA directed termination and Freeman relied on that, making lease effectively terminated | No written notice was given to Scott as required by the HAP contract; WHA continued payments, so contract remained in force | HAP contract was not properly terminated for lack of required written notice; lease remained in effect |
| Whether Freeman paid the $400 balance of the security deposit | Freeman asserts she paid $400 cash to Scott and is entitled to its return | Scott says Freeman did not pay the $400 portion | Court found Freeman failed to prove payment; Scott proved Freeman owed $400, but court folded the security deposit into unpaid rent calculation to avoid windfall |
| Whether Scott can recover unpaid rent for March–June 2016 and duty to mitigate | Freeman contends she vacated and WHA termination affected obligations | Scott seeks unpaid rent for Mar–Jun 2016 but must mitigate after notice of vacancy | Court held Freeman paid February $13; Freeman liable for March–May rent ($242/month) totaling $726; Scott failed to prove mitigation efforts so not entitled to rent before re-let (July) |
| Whether Freeman owes for water bill and property damage beyond normal wear and tear | Freeman denies liability for water or excessive damage | Scott sought $85.20 water + $675 property repairs and $25 special trash removal | Court rejected water and most damage claims for lack of documentation; awarded $25 for special trash removal; declined speculative damage award |
Key Cases Cited
- VLIW Technology, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 840 A.2d 606 (Del. 2003) (elements of breach of contract and plaintiff's burden explained)
- Reynolds v. Reynolds, 237 A.2d 708 (Del. 1967) (preponderance standard described)
- Stoltz Mgmt. Co. v. Consumer Affairs Bd., 616 A.2d 1205 (Del. 1992) (landlord must not recover for normal wear and tear; proof required for damage awards)
- Rash v. Equitable Trust Co., 159 A. 839 (Del. Super. 1931) (basic definition of a contract)