Diehl-Guerrero v. Hardy Boys Construction, LLC
N16C-08-041 CLS
| Del. Super. Ct. | Mar 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Shannon C. Diehl-Guerrero sued Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and others; Wells Fargo moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s negligence claim for failure to plead a duty.
- On February 28, 2017 the Superior Court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, concluding Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing Wells Fargo owed a duty or acted as a fiduciary in selecting an inspector.
- Plaintiff sought certification of an interlocutory appeal under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 42, arguing the court misapplied Delaware law (relying on Keith v. Sioris) and made factual findings on an incomplete record.
- Wells Fargo opposed certification, asserting the application was effectively a reargument and did not meet Rule 42 criteria for interlocutory review.
- The Court independently reviewed the Rule 42 factors and concluded none supported interlocutory certification, emphasizing (1) duty is a legal question for the court, and (2) Delaware authority treats creditor–debtor relations as non‑fiduciary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wells Fargo owed a legal duty to Plaintiff under negligence theory | Court misapplied law; duty may exist and should not be dismissed at this stage | No duty pleaded; dismissal appropriate because complaint lacks allegations tying Wells Fargo to inspector selection | Court held Plaintiff failed to plead a duty; dismissal affirmed for interlocutory certification purposes |
| Whether a fiduciary duty exists between creditor and debtor (mortgagee/mortgagor) | Keith v. Sioris is dicta; Delaware law is not settled that creditor/debtor cannot be fiduciary | Creditor–debtor relationship does not give rise to fiduciary duties; multiple authorities support this rule | Court held, as a matter of law, a fiduciary relationship does not arise from a creditor–debtor relationship |
| Whether interlocutory appeal should be certified under Supreme Court Rule 42 | Certification warranted because the court incorrectly interpreted Delaware law and made factual findings | Application fails Rule 42 criteria; interlocutory appeals are exceptional and standards not met | Court denied certification after analyzing Rule 42 factors and finding none applied |
| Whether the Court relied on facts outside the complaint in dismissing | Plaintiff contends the court made improper factual determinations on incomplete record | Court argues decision was based on legal insufficiency of complaint and cited HUD info only for clarification | Court found dismissal was grounded on failure to state a claim and did not rely improperly on extrinsic facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Pipher v. Parsell, 930 A.2d 890 (Del. 2007) (duty is a question of law for the court)
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (motion to dismiss tests whether recovery is conceivable under complaint)
- Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029 (Del. 1998) (pleading standards and inferences to be drawn on motion to dismiss)
- Central Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital Holdings LLC, 27 A.3d 531 (Del. 2011) (standards for evaluating pleadings and motions)
- Tharp v. St. Georges Trust Co., 34 A.2d 253 (Del. Ch. 1943) (bank–depositor relation is debtor–creditor, not fiduciary)