Jeremy Lucas and Wilsa Coker v. Lary J. Stephens and Initra W. Stephens
CPU4-16-001271
| Del. Ct. Com. Pl. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- In July 2013 Jeremy Lucas and Wilsa Coker (Appellants) and Lary and Initra Stephens (Appellees) signed an Agreement of Sale for 526 Deer Run, with a $2,500 non‑refundable deposit and an addendum providing monthly rental payments while the buyers sought a mortgage through July 30, 2014.
- The written agreement functioned as a lease with a non‑refundable option to purchase; the parties treated it as a landlord‑tenant relationship governed by Title 25 of Delaware’s Landlord‑Tenant Code.
- Appellees did not exercise the purchase option, made sporadic and often late payments beginning December 2013, and vacated the property on September 21, 2015 without providing 60 days’ written notice under 25 Del. C. § 5106(d).
- Appellants claimed $7,169 in unpaid rent (plus other charges), supporting a spreadsheet and payment records; Appellees offered no contrary payment evidence at trial.
- Appellants also sought $573.74 for water, $250 for a removed refrigerator, and $7,500 for excessive property damage; the Court found the evidence for these items insufficient.
- The Court awarded Appellants $5,883.50 in unpaid rent (December 2013–November 2015 shortfall), plus pre‑ and post‑judgment interest at the statutory rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of the Agreement | Agreement of Sale is enforceable as written; deposit was penalty for default | Agreement functioned as lease/option; monthly payments were rental | Court: contract is a two‑year lease with a non‑refundable purchase option; Landlord‑Tenant Code applies |
| Rent arrears and calculation period | Seeks $7,169 for unpaid rent, including Sep–Nov 2015 for failure to give 60 days’ notice | Denied or failed to rebut Appellants’ payment records | Court: Appellants proved arrears from Dec 2013–Nov 2015; judgment $5,883.50 after adjusting for payments and spreadsheet error |
| Charges for water and removed refrigerator | Seeks $573.74 water; $250 refrigerator removal | Appellees dispute amounts/ownership; no counter‑evidence | Court: Appellants failed to prove these charges attributable to Appellees; denied |
| Property damage beyond normal wear and tear | Seeks $7,500 for repairs | Appellees contend insufficient proof; Appellants failed to provide adequate notice/opportunity to cure | Court: Evidence and photos inadequate; Appellants also failed to comply with §5513 notice/cure requirement; damage claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbs v. Piper, 153 A. 674 (Del. 1930) (lack of contractual language requiring purchase implies option contract)
- Salamone v. Gorman, 106 A.3d 354 (Del. 2014) (discussion of option agreements and contract interpretation)
- Brown v. Robyn Realty Co., 367 A.2d 183 (Del. Super. 1976) (application of landlord‑tenant law to rental agreements)
- VLIW Technology, LLC v. Hewlett‑Packard Co., 840 A.2d 606 (Del. 2003) (elements and burden for breach of contract claim)
- Stoltz Mgmt. Co. v. Consumer Affairs Bd., 616 A.2d 1205 (Del. 1992) (landlord cannot charge for normal wear and tear)