Opinion
05-11-2021
Lindsey Jenks, Plaintiff, v. Matthew Longwell and Nancy Longwell, Defendants.
Lindsey Jenks, pro se Matthew Longwell and Nancy Longwell, pro se
Unpublished Opinion
Lindsey Jenks, pro se
Matthew Longwell and Nancy Longwell, pro se
MICHAEL A. SCIORTINO, J.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiff, LINDSEY JENKS ("plaintiff") commenced this small claim against MATTHEW LONGWELL and NANCY LONGWELL ("defendants") in the Justice Court for the Town of Parma, County of Monroe, State of New York, in the amount of $1,000.00, plus the $15.00 court filing fee, for a total of $1,015.00 for, according to the Small Claims Complaint Form, "Defendants are refusing to sign the Cancellation and Release of Purchase and Sale Contract dated November 1, 2020. The defendants' realtor, Keller Williams state that they are unable to refund the $1,000.00 deposit for 197 Burritt Road, Hilton, NY, unless the sellers sign the contract." The Court Clerk in the Town of Parma properly served the Notice of Small Claim by mailing it by certified mail and by first class mail. See, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §214.10(e). The parties participated in a fair and impartial hearing of this small claim on April 15, 2021, and each witness was properly sworn under oath prior to providing any testimony to the Court. The Court confirmed that the defendant resided within the municipality-the Town of Parma, giving rise to this Court's jurisdiction. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §213(a) (McKinney's 2021). Moreover, Uniform Justice Court Act §202 states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall have jurisdiction of actions and proceedings for the recovery of money or chattels where the amount sought to be recovered or the value of the property does not exceed $3,000." Uniform Justice Court Act §202 (McKinney's 2021). The jurisdictional thresholds have been met permitting this Small Claim to continue.
At the hearing of the Small Claim, the defendants presented a Counterclaim against the plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00, plus $3.00 court filing fee, for a total of $1,003.00 for, according to the Counterclaim form "We would like a countersuit in the amount of $1,000.00 to offset the cost of certain repairs and upgrades requested by the plaintiff before purchase. Also for the many items given away or thrown away because they gave us 3 days to leave." In support of and in opposition to the Small Claim and the Counterclaim, the parties presented evidence in their own behalf, including testimony of the plaintiff and the defendants, and one fact witness for the plaintiff-namely, Jennifer Passarell, plaintiff's Broker. Plaintiff introduced, and this Court received, seven (7) pieces of documentary evidence. Defendant introduced, and this Court received, four (4) pieces of documentary evidence.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The relevant facts in this matter demonstrate that the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a Purchase and Sale Contract for Residential Property ("Purchase Agreement") whereby the plaintiff was to purchase the defendants' home residence located at 197 Burritt Road, Hilton, New York 14468 ("Premises"). See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Both parties subscribed their signature to the Purchase Agreement evidencing a legally binding document on or around October 18, 2020. See id. Attorneys representing both parties issued their respective Attorney Approval letters to the Purchase Agreement. See id. On October 20, 2020, plaintiff paid a $1,000.00 deposit in good faith towards the purchase price to close on the Premises. See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. On or about October 22, 2020, a Home Inspection Report was issued by Gunther Home Inspections, Inc. to the plaintiff that identified and reported various concerns and recommendations to the plaintiff regarding smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, mildew in the attic, main roof surface and shingle replacement, section of railing near the pool deck, as further identified by plaintiff in her testimony. See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.
As a result of the concerns and recommendations in the Home Inspection Report, the plaintiff proposed to defendants an Addendum to the Purchase Agreement that identified various "Conditions" plaintiff was seeking to be repaired and remedied consistent with the Home Inspection Report as a prerequisite to closing under the Purchase Agreement. See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. Plaintiff's proposed Addendum was never subscribed, or executed, by the defendants evidencing an agreement to these "Conditions". Thereafter on October 26, 2020, defendants themselves proposed an Addendum to the Purchase Agreement that included a request for a "good faith deposit in the amount of $5,000.00 to Listing Broker that is non-refundable on buyer for non-performance". See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. Defendants' proposed Addendum was never subscribed, or executed, by the plaintiff evidencing an agreement to pay the additional good faith and non-refundable deposit of $5,000.00.
Thereafter, on November 1, 2020, plaintiff and Jennifer Passarell, Plaintiff's Broker, issued a Cancellation and Release of Purchase and Sale Contract ("Cancellation") to the defendants advising that "Buyer is not willing to do a non-refundable deposit for potential issues" and demanded the initial $1,000.00 deposit back from the defendants through their Listing Broker, Keller Williams Realty. Plaintiff, and her counsel, was unable to get the defendants' Listing Broker to return the $1,000.00 deposit as it was being held in escrow and the defendants did not execute the Cancellation. Plaintiff introduced various correspondences between the parties' attorneys on this subject which ultimately encouraged the filing of the instant Small Claim for the return of the $1,000.00. See, Plaintiff's Exhibits 5.
Defendants oppose the Small Claim in full. Defendants each testified that they believed plaintiff agreed to the proposed Addendum as indicated by their Listing Broker, Jared Kierecki of Keller Williams Realty, and that defendants only had three (3) days to conduct the repairs as requested by plaintiff in her proposed Addendum and then vacate. Notably, these alleged statements from the Listing Broker were not reduced to writing or introduced in any other evidentiary form by defendants. Nor did any of the parties subscribe to the respective proposed addendums as submitted which could corroborate in some manner defendants' testimony. See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 and 5. Notwithstanding, defendants did hire New Age Contractors to perform initial repairs to the pool gate railing and posts, reroute electric, and pour concrete for the total of $786.72, did purchase six (6) smoke and carbon monoxide detectors for $127.88, and did gift items of a personal nature away in anticipation that they needed to vacate the Premises immediately. See, Defendants Exhibits A, B, C, and D. Defendants also introduced an itemized list of personal property and other sentimental personal property including a one-of-a-kind hand carved bench which this Court concludes would exceed the remaining balance of defendants' total claim, $85.40. See id. As a result of the loss to defendants, they filed a Counterclaim against plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The purpose of Small Claims Court is to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1804 (McKinney's 2021); see, Hampton v. Annal Management Co., Ltd., 164 Misc.2d 287 (City Civ. Ct. 1994), appeal dismissed, 168 Misc.2d 138 (App. Term 1996). Small Claims Court is designed to provide litigants with a simple, informal and inexpensive procedure for the prompt determination of claims. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1802 (McKinney's 2021). Although procedural rules may be relaxed, cases must be decided according to the rules and principles of substantive law. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1804. This Court is bound by this standard; a standard which has been supported throughout many terms of this Court and others similarly situated throughout New York State. Accordingly, the goal of this Court throughout this entire proceeding is to ensure that substantial justice is done between the parties relying on the sound principles of statutory and case law; in doing so, this Court is required to deliberate upon the facts and apply the law to those facts. Under New York law, even in the relatively informal atmosphere of Small Claims Court, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing its case by a preponderance of the evidence. See, Naclerio v. Adjunct Faculty, 1 Misc.3d 135 (Appellate Term 2003); see also, Rodriguez v Mitch's Transmission, 32 Misc.3d 126 (Appellate Term 2011). In other words, plaintiff must prove its case by the greater weight of the evidence. If the testimony is evenly balanced, judgment must be rendered against the plaintiff.
Courts have long adhered to the principle that in the construction of contracts, where the language is clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous, courts should interpret a contract by its own language. See, R/S Assoc. v. NY Job Dev. Auth., 98 N.Y.2d 29 (2002). In this case, the parties recorded their agreement in a clear and complete document of which the court could enforce by its own writing according to its own terms-namely, the Purchase Agreement. See id. Plaintiff did meet her burden of establishing she is entitled to the return of $1,000.00 from defendants within the clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous language of the Purchase Agreement at Section 2. See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. While the defendants argue that they performed repairs to the Premises in reliance upon a proposed Addendum, the purported writing was never subscribed to by the plaintiff evidencing her agreement to continue the Purchase Agreement with a good faith non-refundable deposit of $5,000.00, in addition to the $1,000.00 deposit already made. Rather, the plaintiff submitted the Cancellation electing to cancel the Purchase Agreement and have the full return of the $1,000.00 deposit consistent with its terms. See id. The fact that defendants made multiple repairs to the Premises, purchased six (6) smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, gifted personal property away to others, and discarded other sentimental property, does not entitle the defendants to an award or judgment for their Counterclaim.
Moreover, any allegations that imply there may have been an oral agreement as a result of statements made to and through the Listing Broker, Jared Kierecki of Keller Williams Realty, are non-persuasive. Under our rule of law, certain oral agreements are limited by the Statute of Frauds. In particular, Section 5-701 of the New York General Obligations Law requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. See, General Obligations Law § 5-701 (McKinney's 2021). The requirements of a "writing" to satisfy the General Obligations Law are set out in § 5-701(b)(3)(d):
3. There is sufficient evidence that a contract has been made if:
(d) There is a note, memorandum or other writing sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made, signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by its authorized agent or broker.
To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, a writing must identify the parties, describe the subject matter, state all the essential terms of the agreement, and be signed by the party to be charged. See, Durso v. Biasch, 37 A.D.3d 646 (2d Dep't 2007). In order for a written memorandum or note to meet the requirements imposed by the Statute of Frauds, it must contain substantially the whole agreement, and all its material terms, and conditions so that one reading it can understand from it what the agreement is. See, HPSC, Inc. v. Matthews, 179 A.D.2d 974 (3d Dep't 1992). The purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent fraud in the proving of certain legal transactions particularly susceptible to deception, mistake, and perjury. See, Sheehy v. Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells, LLP, 3 N.Y.3d 554 (2004). Here in this case, neither proposed addendum was subscribed by the party to whom enforcement is sought or by its authorized agent or broker, as required under the Statute of Frauds. Additionally, there was no such admission by the plaintiff that an oral agreement was made to be sufficient evidence to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. See, General Obligations Law § 5-701(3)(c) (McKinney's 2021). Absent such an admission by the plaintiff to an oral agreement, this Court cannot conclude that the Statute of Frauds was satisfied to permit a binding agreement between the parties as a result of the alleged oral statements made to and through the Listing Broker, Jared Kierecki of Keller Williams Realty.
As such, based upon the credible testimony in this case of the plaintiff, defendants, plaintiff's fact witness, and the documentary evidence introduced, this Court concludes that the principles and rules of substantive law along with the purpose of substantial justice compel a determination that plaintiff has a cause of action in this Court that would entitle plaintiff to damages in this small claim against the defendant. In short, plaintiff has met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff's small claim against defendant is GRANTED for the total of $1,000.00, plus the court cost of $15.00 representing the court filing fee, for a grand total of $1,015.00; and, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendants are to hereby make payment of the total amount of the small claim of $1,015.00 to the plaintiff at the above address within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this Decision, Order, and Final Judgment; and, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendants' Counterclaim in the amount of $1,000.00 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action which damages may be awarded.
For the benefit of the parties to this small claim, review of this Court's Decision, Order, and Final Judgment may be taken consistent with Uniform Justice Court Act §1807. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1807 (McKinney's 2021). Moreover, pursuant to Uniform Justice Court Act §1703(b), "An appeal as of right from a judgment entered in a small claim or a commercial claim must be taken within thirty days of the following, whichever first occurs:
1. service by the court of a copy of the judgment appealed from upon the appellant.
2. service by a party of a copy of the judgment appealed from upon the appellant.
3. service by the appellant of a copy of the judgment appealed from upon a party.
Where service as provided in paragraphs one through three of this subdivision is by mail, five days shall be added to the thirty day period prescribed in this section. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1703(b) (McKinney's 2021).
This constitutes the Decision, Order, and Final Judgment of the Justice Court in the Town of Parma, County of Monroe, State of New York.