Opinion
Civil Action No. 18723-NC
Date Submitted: July 16, 2002
Date Decided: August 2, 2002
Richard L. Abbott, The Bayard Firm, P.O. Box 25130, Wilmington, DE 19899.
Charles S. Knothe, 14 The Commons, 3516 Silverside Road, Wilmington, DE 19810.
Dear Counsel:
This is my decision on plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement agreement in this action. The complaint in this matter, filed on March 9, 2001, sought to enforce paragraph 8 of the Declaration of Restrictions for Commodore Estates II, a restrictive covenant that prohibited residents of Commodore Estates II from parking boats or boat trailers within fifty feet of a boundary line in the development. It was alleged that the Sanclementes were in violation of paragraph 8 of the Declaration of Restrictions. On March 28, 2001, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint and contested the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction. It appears that in the fall of 2001, the plaintiffs received another complaint from residents of Commodore Estates II who live in close proximity to the Sanclemente's residence. This complaint concerned the Sanclemente's installation of a pink playhouse in the backyard of their property. Evidently, under the Declaration of Restrictions for Commodore Estates II improvements to the Sanclemente's property must be in conformance with the "color scheme" of the residence on the Sanclemente's property. The playhouse, built for the Sanclemente's children, is pink in color. The Sanclemente's residence, however, is not pink in color.
Counsel for the plaintiffs was given authority to negotiate with the defendants regarding the subject matter of this action (the parking of a boat and trailer in violation of paragraph 8 of the Declaration), as well as the issue concerning the color of the playhouse. According to the plaintiffs, the parties discussed a solution to the color of the playhouse that would involve construction of a three-foot high picket fence around three sides of the pink playhouse. Now the parties have reached an impasse about whether there was actually a meeting of the minds regarding the height of the picket fence. Plaintiffs have moved to enforce specifically the agreement of settlement that they believed was reached in early February of this year. Defendants insist that no settlement agreement was ever reached regarding the exact size of the picket fence and they dispute the plaintiffs' version of the conversations regarding the picket fence and the pink playhouse.
After reviewing the memoranda of law submitted by counsel for the parties in this matter, I conclude that this action must be dismissed as moot. It is undisputed that the boat and trailer (the subject matter of the complaint) no longer are parked on the defendants' property. Nothing before the Court suggests that the defendants intend to return the boat and trailer to their property in Commodore Estates II.
Accordingly, the complaint filed in this case on March 9, 2001, which seeks a permanent injunction that prohibits a boat or boat trailer from being stored anywhere on the defendants' property in Commodore Estates II, no longer presents a ripe controversy for resolution by this Court. If the plaintiffs are concerned that the defendants might, in the future, locate a boat or boat trailer on their property in violation of paragraph 8 of the Declaration of Restrictions, the plaintiffs have a remedy in the form of an action seeking injunctive relief. If there is an indication that the defendants have abused the judicial process, plaintiffs may, in appropriate circumstances, seek attorneys' fees and costs in connection with having to file an action yet again to enforce the Declaration of Restrictions.
Finally, I decline to enforce the purported settlement agreement regarding the pink playhouse and the picket fence for two reasons. First, I believe the settlement is not enforceable because of a dispute of fact regarding the terms that were actually agreed upon as part of the settlement. Second, in light of the dismissal of the underlying action, I do not believe it would be prudent to enforce a settlement in an action that no longer presents a ripe controversy for adjudication.
For the foregoing reasons, I deny the motion to enforce settlement agreement and I dismiss this lawsuit without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.