Miller v. Onix Silverside, LLC
N15A-03-009 AML
| Del. Super. Ct. | Aug 26, 2016Background
- Mary Miller was admitted to Cadia (nursing facility) in Dec 2013; on Dec 28, 2013 Mary and her daughter Deborah signed a Resident Admission Agreement naming Deborah as Responsible Party and obligating Responsible Party to pay resident charges (minus $44/month).
- Medicare covered Mary initially but Cadia issued notice on Feb 12, 2014 that skilled-care Medicare coverage ended Feb 15, 2014; Cadia thereafter billed Mary as a private-pay resident. Parties disputed whether the private daily rate was $270 or had increased to $300 effective Feb 2014.
- Deborah retained an attorney for Medicaid planning, established a Miller Trust, and Mary later conveyed her house to Deborah (June 26, 2014); Medicaid ultimately approved coverage effective June 1, 2014.
- Cadia sued Mary and Deborah in April 2014 for unpaid charges (breach of contract and fraudulent conveyance). After a one-day trial, the Court of Common Pleas entered judgment for Cadia for unpaid charges and awarded attorneys’ fees and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. Both sides appealed (Deborah appeals; Cadia cross-appeals).
- The Superior Court affirmed liability and the fee award, adjusted the damages slightly, but reversed the trial court’s interest ruling and held Cadia is entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest at the contractual rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cadia) | Defendant's Argument (Deborah) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Levinson emails and WVMI report testimony | Emails and WVMI report were properly admitted and supported Cadia's timing of Medicare termination | Emails were hearsay; WVMI report shows Medicare coverage through Dec 2014 and testimony about a "typo" should have been excluded | No abuse of discretion: Deborah waived email objection at trial; WVMI testimony admissible and not prejudicial; best-evidence rule inapplicable to testimony about a typographical error |
| Relevance of bills Deborah paid with Mary’s funds | Bills show Deborah controlled Mary’s funds and support liability under Agreement | Pre-February bills were irrelevant and offered to prejudice Deborah | Trial court properly admitted bills for limited purpose; any error harmless; evidence relevant to Deborah's contractual liability |
| Breach of contract / liability for private-pay charges | Mary was private-pay from Feb 16–Apr 6, 2014; Deborah as Responsible Party liable for unpaid private-pay balance | Mary should have been treated as Medicaid-pending (or Medicaid would retroactively cover up to 3 months) so lower charges apply | Affirmed: substantial record supports finding Mary was private-pay and Deborah liable; Medicaid eligibility only effective June 1, 2014 and asset issues precluded retroactive coverage for earlier months |
| Daily rate and damages amount | Cadia: $300/day (50 days) → higher damages; entitled to pre-judgment interest and contractual post-judgment interest (1.5%/month) | Deborah: no notice of rate increase so $270/day proper; statutory/legal interest rate applies | Damages at $270/day affirmed (Cadia failed to show required 30-day written notice to Deborah); but trial court erred by not awarding pre-judgment interest and by applying statutory post-judgment rate – Superior Court orders interest at contractual rate |
| Attorneys’ fees award | Contract allows fee-shifting; trial court reasonably calculated fees; Deborah waived response | Award was excessive and court failed to consider Deborah’s ability to pay | Affirmed: contractual fee-shifting clause supports award; trial court did not abuse discretion in fee amount or analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Connell, 488 A.2d 1303 (Del. 1985) (standard of appellate review for factual findings)
- Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671 (Del. 1972) (appellate review defers to trial court when substantial evidence supports findings)
- Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc. v. Norman Gershman's Things to Wear, Inc., 596 A.2d 1358 (Del. 1991) (standard for reversible evidentiary error requires prejudice to substantial rights)
- ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, 91 A.3d 554 (Del. 2014) (contractual fee-shifting enforces fee awards under American Rule exceptions)
- Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 603 A.2d 818 (Del. 1992) (prejudgment interest generally awarded as of right)
- Day v. State, 297 A.2d 50 (Del. 1972) (best-evidence rule requires originals to prove terms of a writing)
- Culp v. State, 766 A.2d 489 (Del. 2001) (definition of abuse of discretion)