Williams v. Toll Brothers Builders, 257 A.3d 1022

Frederick Williams bought a Hockessin Chase home in 2011 and alleged construction defects (driveway, stucco, roof, etc.).
Dec. 2017: Williams sued Toll Brothers Builders and Michael Brown in Court of Common Pleas for driveway defects; that action was dismissed without prejudice (wrong defendant/service); counsel informed Williams that Hockessin Chase, LP was the proper defendant.
2019: Williams filed a new Court of Common Pleas complaint naming Hockessin Chase and others; defendants moved to dismiss based on arbitration clauses in the purchase and warranty agreements.
Nov. 1, 2019: Court of Common Pleas dismissed the 2019 action, concluding the parties agreed to binding arbitration; Williams did not appeal; a reargument motion was denied.
June 2020: Williams sued in Superior Court on the same defect claims; defendants moved to dismiss arguing res judicata and arbitration; Superior Court dismissed on claim‑preclusion grounds as duplicative of the earlier Court of Common Pleas judgment.
Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court: the Court of Common Pleas judgment precluded Williams’s later suit; the Court also criticized appellees’ counsel for not disclosing an adverse Superior Court decision (Wang) but declined to reverse on that basis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams’s Superior Court suit is precluded by the earlier Court of Common Pleas dismissal (res judicata/claim preclusion)	Williams: not precluded because arbitration is not the sole remedy and Wang supports that view	Defendants: prior dismissal required arbitration and therefore bars relitigation of the same operative facts	Affirmed — Superior Court correctly dismissed under claim preclusion; earlier judgment precluded the later suit
Whether arbitration was the exclusive remedy, such that the Court of Common Pleas properly dismissed the 2019 action	Williams: Wang shows arbitration is not exclusive; other remedies plausible	Defendants: sales and warranty agreements require binding arbitration	Court of Common Pleas concluded arbitration required; Williams did not appeal; Supreme Court did not overturn that conclusion and upheld preclusion
Whether appellees’ counsel had an obligation to disclose Wang (an adverse decision) when moving to dismiss in 2019	Williams: counsel should have cited Wang to the Court of Common Pleas	Defendants: Wang was not final and could be overturned, so no duty to disclose it	Court rebuked counsel’s omission and reminded of Rule 3.3 duty to cite adverse controlling authority, but declined to reverse the judgment or resolve the broader rule about non‑final decisions

Betts v. Townsends, Inc., 765 A.2d 531 (Del. 2000) (describing res judicata/claim preclusion principles)
Dover Historical Soc’y, Inc. v. City of Dover Planning Comm’n, 902 A.2d 1084 (Del. 2006) (setting out the multi‑factor test for res judicata)
Mannheim Video, Inc. v. County of Cook, 884 F.2d 1043 (7th Cir. 1989) (advocate’s duty to disclose directly adverse controlling authority)
Tyler v. State, 47 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2001) (adverse‑authority obligation can extend to decisions arguably distinguishable)
In re Greenberg, 104 A.2d 46 (N.J. 1954) (duty to bring adverse rulings to the tribunal’s attention)
Cicio v. City of New York, 98 A.D.2d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983) (failure to cite adverse authorities can be inexcusable)