Opinion
C.A. 01A-06-001-FSS
Submitted: December 3, 2001
Decided: April 3, 2002
Upon Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas — AFFIRMED
Ms. Shirley Wilson, Wilmington, Delaware, Appellant, Pro Se.
George T. Lees, III, Esquire, Bifferato Bifferato Gentilotti, Wilmington, DE, Attorney for Appellee.
ORDER
This is an appeal from a decision after trial in the Court of Common Pleas. Procedurally, the case is messy. Appellant is pro se. After the trial, she bombarded the Court of Common Pleas with serial motions for reconsideration, reargument, etc. Although it is hard to tell, it appears that Appellant may have even mixed this case in with other litigation involving her. Appellant's pleadings are very difficult to follow.
The court has reviewed the record from the Court of Common Pleas. It is satisfied that the Court of Common Pleas accurately determined that Wilson hired First State Contracting Co., to do painting and similar work on her investment property. First State did the work, with minor deficiencies for which it adjusted its bill. The evidence presented at trial supports the conclusion that Appellant seemingly approved the work and she gave First State a check, but she stopped payment.
First State sued for its money in the Justice of the Peace Court. After the Justice of the Peace ruled for First State, Wilson took an appeal de novo and she had a new trial in the Court of Common Pleas. Again, Wilson lost and the Court of Common Pleas continued to rule in First State's favor during the extensive post-trial proceedings. Hence, this appeal.
I.
Initially, the court emphasizes that unlike the appeal that Appellant took from the Justice of the Peace Court's initial ruling in First State's favor, which precipitated an entirely new trial in the Court of Common Pleas, the appeal here simply is on the record. This is not a new trial or a rehearing of the matters presented during the Court of Common Pleas proceedings. During this appeal, the court is not free to reconsider the evidence and reach its own conclusions.
Specifically, the court does not "get to weigh the issues [and] demand documents for Oral argument," as Wilson contends. In an appeal like this one, this court may only review the record that was made in the Court of Common Pleas and decide narrowly whether the Court of Common Pleas' proceedings are tainted by an error of law or whether the Court of Common Pleas' verdict is unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. And if the court calls for oral argument, which is unusual and not potentially helpful to the court in this case, it is on the record. An oral argument is not a new trial, or even a rehearing.
The standards for appellate review are clear. As mentioned above, an appeal from a Court of Common Pleas decision to Superior Court is "on the record." Superior Court does not try the case "de novo." Upon review, the standard is:
10 Del. C. § 1326(c); Super.Ct.Civ.R. 72(g).
Id.
whether the factual findings made by the trial judge are sufficiently supported by the record and are a product of an orderly and logically deductive process.
Mellon Bank v. Dougherty, Del. Super., C.A. No. 88A-DE-3-A, Steele, J. (Aug. 24, 1989) Order at*1 (citing Smart v. Bank of Delaware, Del. Supr., No. 201, 1984, Christie, J. (Dec. 5, 1984)).
Further, the trial court's findings, when supported by the record, "should be accepted" by the reviewing court, "even if . . . acting independently, [the reviewing court] would reach a contrary conclusion." Finally, if sufficient evidence supports the trial judge's findings, "the Superior Court sitting in its appellate capacity must affirm."
Id.
State v. Cagle, 332 A.2d 140, 143 (Del.Supr. 1974).
II.
As mentioned above, the court is satisfied that the Court of Common Pleas' legal rulings before and during trial are correct. Similarly, the court is satisfied that the Court of Common Pleas' evidentiary rulings do not involve any abuse of discretion. Finally, the court is satisfied that the evidence amply justified the Court of Common Pleas' verdict against Appellant.Insofar as the appeal focuses on the Court of Common Pleas' proceedings in this case, Wilson has not presented specific claims about specific mistakes by the Court of Common Pleas. In her opening and reply briefs, Wilson focuses on photographs allegedly showing First State Contracting's defective work, or photographs that Wilson did not introduce during the trials, but which she says are available and potentially helpful to her cause. The Court of Common Pleas addressed the photographs extensively and carefully. Some photographs were allowed into evidence despite Wilson's non-compliance with various discovery rules and court orders to compel. The Court of Common Pleas was unimpressed with the photographs because they were taken long after First State Contracting's work was done. As for the photographs of Wilson's property that were not produced by Wilson at trial, the Court of Common Pleas correctly concluded that she had more than enough time and ample opportunity to marshal her evidence and prepare for trial. There was no abuse of discretion. Otherwise, concerning pretrial practice and evidentiary rulings at trial, the court cannot find an instance where Wilson was treated incorrectly or she suffered unfair prejudice in any ruling.
III.
In closing, the court reiterates that the evidence presented at Appellant's Court of Common Pleas' trial supports the conclusion that Appellant hired First State Contracting to perform work, which First State Contracting substantially performed. The evidence further supports the conclusion that Appellant inspected the work and she agreed that it was satisfactory. Her agreement was demonstrated, in large part, when Appellant tendered a check in the correct amount. While Appellant insists that the work was not right and only after she paid the contractor did she discover faults, those were matters of fact for the trial court to resolve. Taking everything into account, this court sees no reason to reverse the Court of Common Pleas' judgment.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Common Pleas' April 10, 2001 decision, May 18, 2001 Order and May 30, 2001 Order are AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.