Submitted: June 19, 2018
Consideration of Appellant's Appeal from the Court of
Common Pleas. CASE BELOW: CPU4-16-000219
Talley-Siders, PO Box 1402, Bear, Delaware 19701. Pro Se
L. Gouge, Jr., Esquire, Donald L. Gouge, Jr., LLC, 800 North
King Street, Suite 303, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. Attorney
L. SCOTT, JR. JUDGE.
an appeal from the decision of Court of Common Pleas. Jack
and Georgia Mayhorn (Sellers) initiated litigation in the
Court of Common Pleas against Sinina Talley-Siders (Buyer)
for a breach of contract dispute arising from the sale of the
Mayhorn's home. Talley-Siders proceeding pro se
framed her defense as a counterclaim for fraud. Talley-Siders
now appeals. For the following reasons the Court of Common
Pleas decision will be affirmed.
a bench trial in August 2017, the Court entered judgment in
favor of Sellers against Buyer in a September 5, 2017
decision. The Court determined Buyer breached the Sales
Agreement contract and was therefore liable for damages
arising from the breach. Even though Buyer offered testimony
related to the number and construction of bathrooms in the
home, the Court determined Buyer did not move forward with
the purchase because of issues with the sump pump.
Buyer's fraud claim the Court determined neither the
Sellers nor their agent made a false representation with
knowledge of its falsity nor with reckless indifference to
the truth. Additionally, the Court determined Buyer failed to
sustain her burden of showing Sellers intended to induce
Buyer into action. The Court awarded damages in the amount of
$17, 236.60 plus pre- and post-judgment interest.
trial, Defendant alleged that Plaintiffs intentionally misled
her when they listed the property with three full bathrooms.
In her answer to the complaint in the Court of Common Pleas,
Buyer asserted claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and bad
appeal, Buyer alleges the Court of Common Pleas based its
judgment on an error of law. Buyer claims the Court failed to
analyze the facts of the case in light of the Buyer Property
Protection Act and 6 Del. C. § 2572 related to
the seller's obligation to disclose material defects.
Buyer further alleges the Court failed to consider relevant
building codes in its decision. These arguments are based on
Buyer's assertion that a bathroom addition in the home
was constructed without proper permits by an unlicensed
contractor. Buyer claims the work was in violation of local
building codes and Seller's failure to disclose the
nature of the work in the Seller's Disclosure was in
violation of the Buyer Protection Act.
Buyer claims the Court neglected facts that would have been
beneficial to her defense. Buyer claims the Court neglected
testimony by Buyer and Seller tending to show fraud on the
part of Seller. Buyer further contends the Court
misapprehended the facts related to the nature of the earnest
money deposit, the date she signed the seller's
disclosure, the information uploaded to a MLS corporation,
and testimony provided by Seller's real estate agent.
contends that Buyer is attempting to raise new issues on
appeal, and the lower Court's decision does not contain
an error of law. Seller states Buyer failed to raise the
Buyer Property Protection Act and building code violation
liability during trial. Buyer further argues evidence was
presented at trial to support these claims.