Opinion
C.A. No. 01A-04-001 HDR
Submitted: December 4, 2001
Decided: February 22, 2002
Upon Appeal from a Decision of the Kent County Court of Common Pleas. AFFIRMED.
Melvin E. Soll, Esq., Dover, Delaware, for Appellant.
Gary R. Dodge, Esq., of the Law Offices of Gary R. Dodge, P.A., Dover, Delaware, for Appellee.
ORDER
This 22nd day of February, 2002, upon consideration of this appeal, and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) Appellant Harry Long has appealed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas which awarded Appellee Louise F. Nealon $9,646.67 in damages plus costs and interests for breach of an agreement to buy real estate. Under that agreement settlement was to occur on November 30, 1999. After Long's breach the property was marketed and conveyed to another buyer on March 24, 2000. The damages awarded consist primarily of the difference in net proceeds between what Appellee would have received absent Appellant's breach and what Appellee actually received through the resale months later. Also included in the damages is the $30.00 Appellee had to spend to update the property's termite inspection. Appellant is not appealing the finding of breach, but rather the method, employed by the Appellee at trial and accepted by the Court of Common Pleas in its verdict, of calculating damages.
(2) Upon an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, a civil action is "reviewed on the record and shall not be tried de novo." On such an appeal, this Court will not disturb findings of fact if those findings are "supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process." Further, this Court will not disturb lower court judgments where competent evidence exists upon which the findings could be reasonably predicated.
Ensminger v. Merritt Marine Constr., Inc., 597 A.2d 854, 855 (Del.Super.Ct. 1988) (citing State v. Cagle, 332 A.2d 140, 142-43 (Del. 1974)).
Young v. Saroukos, 56 Del. 44, 189 A.2d 437 (1963).
(3) Long claims that the resale price of $120,000 is not indicative of market value at the time of the breach, while Nealon responds that the resale price is a valid indicator in this case. The parties acknowledge the general rule that "Although as a general rule the vendor's loss is measured by the market value of the property at the time of the purchaser's breach, the price obtained on a resale of the property at a later date may be sufficient evidence of the market value at the date of breach provided that market conditions are similar and the time lapse between the date of breach and the resale is not great." The judgment of the trial court shows that it applied this rule to the evidence. The evidence supports the inference that the market conditions were similar and that the time lapse was not great.
77 Am. Jur. 2d Vendor and Purchaser § 578.
(4) Long also disputes the consequential damages awarded in this case. Upon resale, Nealon provided seller's assistance in the amount of $4,000 to the new buyer. Largely because Long was not offered seller's assistance, he contends that the $4,000 was not foreseeable as consequential damages. Nealon argues that regardless of whether he offered seller's assistance to Long, the prevalence of seller's assistance following the breach was reasonably foreseeable. The trial court, by accepting Appellee's requested measure of damages, implicitly found that the seller's assistance was a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach, and was therefore valid as a component of consequential damages. The trial court explicitly stated that the $30.00 termite inspection fee was a necessity toward resale.
(5) Because the facts as found by the Court of Common Pleas are more than adequately supported by the record, they will not be disturbed by this Court. I find no legal error.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is AFFIRMED.