Jack Mayhorn & Georgia Mahorn v. Sinina Talley-Siders
CPU4-16-000219
| Del. Ct. Com. Pl. | Sep 5, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Jack and Georgia Mayhorn entered into a valid Agreement of Sale with defendant Sinina Talley‑Siders for residential property with settlement scheduled July 9, 2015; defendant paid a $2,500 non‑refundable deposit.
- After a home inspection, plaintiffs agreed (and paid) to several minor repairs; plaintiffs proceeded with routine sale steps including appraisal and MLS listing.
- On the day of settlement defendant inspected the house, expressed concern about water in the basement sump pump crock, and refused to appear at settlement; the next day she informed the listing broker she would not purchase because of the sump pump.
- Plaintiffs relisted the property four days later, sold it three months later at a lower price and gave a seller credit to close; plaintiffs incurred moving, holding, utility, repair, and related costs while they mitigated by reselling.
- Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract seeking expectation, incidental, and consequential damages; defendant counterclaimed for fraud/misrepresentation based on bathroom listings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant materially breached the Agreement of Sale by failing to settle | Mayhorns: Defendant’s refusal to settle (over sump pump concern) was a material breach releasing plaintiffs’ remedies | Talley‑Siders: She rescinded because plaintiffs misrepresented number/type of bathrooms (fraud/misrep.) | Court: Defendant materially breached first; no evidence plaintiffs knowingly misrepresented bathrooms or intended to induce purchase; fraud not proved |
| Whether plaintiffs proved damages causally resulting from the breach | Plaintiffs: Suffered diminution in sale price plus incidental and consequential losses caused by defendant’s breach and properly mitigated by timely resale | Defendant: Some claimed costs were beneficial, should offset damages; plaintiffs failed to mitigate | Held: Plaintiffs proved $10,320 loss in value, $1,303.85 incidental costs, and $5,612.75 consequential losses; mitigation adequate; certain speculative items disallowed |
| Whether plaintiffs’ incidental and consequential damages were proven with reasonable certainty and were foreseeable | Plaintiffs: Costs (utilities, termite renewal, insurance adjustment, moving premium, repair expenses) flowed from breach and are recoverable | Defendant: Some costs are speculative or conferred benefit; not recoverable | Held: Awarded specified incidental and consequential items shown with reasonable certainty; denied speculative/unforeseeable items (e.g., certain bills, night‑of‑settlement expenses) |
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees under contract | Plaintiffs: Contract permits attorney’s fees; request to file petition | Defendant: (No substantive recorded challenge in opinion) | Held: Court granted leave to file fee petition; parties given briefing schedule and reserve separate ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Reynolds, 237 A.2d 708 (Del. 1967) (preponderance standard and factfinder’s role in weighing evidence)
- Duncan v. Theratx, Inc., 775 A.2d 1019 (Del. 2001) (expectation damages aim to place nonbreaching party in position as if contract performed)
- VLIW Technology, LLC v. Hewlett‑Packard Co., 840 A.2d 606 (Del. 2003) (elements required to establish breach of contract)
- Rash v. Equitable Trust Co., 159 A. 839 (Del. Super. 1931) (definition of a contract under Delaware law)