Plaintiff 913 Market, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment.
L. SCOTT, JR. JUDGE.
action arises out of a claim for breach of contract.
Plaintiff, 913 Market, LLC (hereinafter
"Plaintiff") filed a Complaint with this Court on
September 27, 2016 alleging that Defendant, InvestUSA Holding
Enterprises, LLC ("Defendant") breached a contract
for the sale of a property located at 913 North Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Plaintiff filed a Motion for
2016, Plaintiff held an auction for the sale of the property
located at 913 North Market Street in Wilmington. Defendant
was the highest bidder with a bid of $1, 200, 000. A Sale
Agreement was drafted by Seller's agent and that
Agreement is at the crux of this action. Closing was
scheduled for July 15, 2016. Closing did not occur as
scheduled, attempts at mediation failed, and eventually this
action was filed. Plaintiff, in an effort to ensure the sale
of the property entered into a "backup" contract
with the second highest bidder on August 3, 2016. The
property was eventually sold in June 2017 to a third party.
Court may grant summary judgment if "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of
law." The moving party bears the initial burden
of showing that no material issues of fact are
present. Once such a showing is made, the burden
shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate that there are
material issues of fact in dispute. In considering a motion for
summary judgment, the Court must view the record in a light
most favorable to the non-moving party. The Court will
not grant summary judgment if it seems desirable to inquire
more thoroughly into the facts in order to clarify the
application of the law.
Parties agree that Defendant was the highest bidder at
auction for the sale of property located at 913 North Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Subsequent to that auction the
Parties entered into a Sales Agreement for the property. The
Parties agree the contract filed with Plaintiff's motion
is the contract at issue before the Court. The parties agree
closing was to be held on July 15, 2016, but did not occur as
scheduled. It is undisputed that a "backup"
contract was entered into by Plaintiff for the sale of the
property after the original closing date. It is also
undisputed that the property eventually sold in 2017 to a
in their motion argues the contract terms are clear and
unambiguous, Defendant breached the contract when closing did
not occur on July 15th, and as a result they are entitled to
recover the Earnest Money Deposit. The deposit stated in the
contract is $61, 687.50 and the addendum to the contract
filed by Plaintiff enlarges that deposit to $123, 375. Per
the deposition of Defendant's representative $123, 375
was deposited into escrow.
opposes summary judgment on several grounds. Defendant argues
there is a dispute as to if and when the contract was
terminated, and whether written notice requirements of the
contract were met. Defendant contends the $123, 000 damage
claim is factually unsupported. Defendant raises issue with
Plaintiff's entering into the "backup"
contract, while dialogue continued between Plaintiff and
Defendant. Additionally, Defendant seeks leave from the Court
to file a counterclaim.
support of their opposition Defendant has submitted the
"backup" contract entered into by Plaintiff, and an
email from Plaintiff's counsel dated January 16, 2017.
Defendant offers the second contract to call into question if
and when the contract in dispute was terminated. Defendant
proffers the email as evidence indicating the parties were
simply "out of contract, meaning that the Plaintiff is
not entitled to the deposit."
appears there are material facts remaining at issue before
the Court. There are unresolved questions related to
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Furthermore,
reviewing the facts in the light most favorable to Defendant
there is a discrepancy as to the amount of damages owed in
the event of a breach. Reviewing the record in a light most
favorable to Defendant, the Court finds that a ...