SC&A Construction, Inc. v. Potter, Jr.
N12L-09-022 AML
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- SC&A Construction sued the Potters on a mechanic's lien/arbitration dispute arising from home-improvement work; an arbitrator awarded SC&A money.
- The Superior Court entered judgment and a mechanic's lien for $116,364 plus post-judgment interest on June 21, 2017 (the Mechanic's Lien Order).
- The Potters appealed and moved to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal, arguing the lien and neighborhood equity obviate need for a bond and pointing to alleged roof defects cited by the City of Wilmington L&I Department.
- The Potters claimed irreparable harm if required to pay or post bond (risk of sheriff's sale, inability to fund roof repairs, loss of property value).
- SC&A opposed the stay, arguing the Potters failed to satisfy the Kirpat factors and that a supersedeas bond — not the mechanic's lien alone — is required to protect SC&A.
- The court denied the stay, finding the Potters did not meet the Kirpat balancing test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to other parties, public interest).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SC&A) | Defendant's Argument (Potter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant a stay of execution pending appeal under Kirpat factors | Opposes stay; argues Potters failed to show factors favor stay and lien insufficient security | Seeks stay without posting a supersedeas bond; contends mechanic's lien and neighborhood equity suffice and will suffer irreparable harm if forced to pay | Denied — Potters did not show the Kirpat factors, and other factors did not strongly favor interim relief |
| Whether mechanic's lien alone can substitute for a supersedeas bond | Argues lien is insufficient and SC&A would suffer harm if execution delayed | Argues lien secures judgment so no bond should be required; requests no or reduced bond | Court did not reach security sufficiency because stay denied; indicated lien is not an adequate substitute absent stronger showing |
| Whether payment of judgment or sheriff's sale constitutes irreparable harm | Argues delay harms SC&A economically after protracted litigation | Potters argue paying would be irreparable due to financial hardship and inability to repair roof; fear of sheriff's sale at depressed price | Payment of money is not irreparable harm; Potters failed to show they could not pay or that SC&A could not recover if reversed |
| Whether public interest favors a stay | SC&A: public interest disfavors further delay in a straightforward contract action | Potters: public policy favors stay because lien secures judgment and L&I issues implicate safety/inspection enforcement | Public interest weighed against stay — case long-pending, further delay would harm efficient resolution and court resources |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirpat, Inc. v. Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n, 741 A.2d 356 (Del. 1998) (sets four-factor test for stays pending appeal and guidance on balancing factors)
- Evans v. Buchanan, 435 F. Supp. 832 (D. Del. 1977) (discusses limits of requiring a trial court to concede error when assessing likelihood of success)
- Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (framework for evaluating whether an issue presents a fair ground for litigation supporting interim relief)