Opinion
C.A. No. 04A-08-001-ESB.
Submitted: April 20, 2005.
Decided: July 12, 2005.
Christina Paoli, Rehoboth Beach, DE.
Cathi Green, Millsboro, DE.
Kim Lankford, Millsboro, DE.
Dear Mss. Paoli, Lankford, and Green:
This is my decision on appellant Christina Paoli's ("Paoli") appeal of the Court of Common Pleas' dismissal of her complaint against appellees Kim Lankford ("Lankford") and Cathi Green ("Green"). Paoli sued Lankford and Green in the Justice of the Peace Court ("J.P. Court"), alleging that they had stolen her mobile home. The J.P. Court dismissed Paoli's complaint after a trial. Paoli appealed the dismissal to a three-judge J.P. Court panel, which also dismissed Paoli's complaint. Paoli appealed the dismissal to the Court of Common Pleas, which, after a trial de novo, also dismissed Paoli's complaint. Paoli has now appealed this most recent dismissal to the Superior Court.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case arises out of the sale and alleged rental of a mobile home originally owned by Paoli. Paoli agreed in late 2001 or early 2002 to sell the mobile home to Lankford for $7,500, which was due on February 1, 2002. Paoli testified that Lankford and Green moved into the mobile home in December 2001 and were supposed to pay her $700 per month in rent until the sale was completed. Lankford and Green moved out of the mobile home in August 2002. Paoli also testified that Lankford never paid her any money for the mobile home. Lankford testified that she did pay $7,500 for the mobile home and that she and Green never agreed to pay rent to Paoli. Lankford did produce, at trial, a Bill of Sale, dated February 12, 2002, which was signed by Paoli, as "Seller," and Lankford, as "Purchaser." The Bill of Sale stated, in part, that Paoli was, as of February 1, 2002, no longer the legal owner of the mobile home. Lankford also provided a State of Delaware Certificate of Title for the mobile home dated March 6, 2002.
The Court of Common Pleas, after stating that Paoli had the burden to establish the landlord-tenant relationship, ruled in favor of Lankford and Green, reasoning that since Lankford had a Bill of Sale and Certificate of Title for the mobile home for the alleged rental period that Paoli had failed to establish that there ever was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, this Court reviews the decision in the same manner as the Supreme Court would consider an appeal. The function of the Court is to "correct errors of law and to review the factual findings of the court below to determine if they are sufficiently supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process." First, errors of law are reviewed de novo. Second, "if substantial evidence exists for a finding of fact, this Court must accept that ruling, as it must not make its own factual conclusions, weigh evidence, or make credibility determinations." "Substantial evidence" means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.
Fiori v. State, 2004 WL 1284205, at *1 (Del.Super.Ct.).
State v. Harris, 1993 Del. Super. LEXIS 481, at *2 citing Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671, 673 (Del. 1972).
Downs v. State, 570 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Del. 1990).
Fiori, 2004 WL at *1 citing Johnson v. Chrysler, 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965).
Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981).
Id.
DISCUSSION
Paoli set forth six grounds for relief in her notice of appeal. However, Paoli did not, in her briefs, pursue these arguments. Instead, she simply restated the facts as she saw them and argued that she should prevail. Therefore, I will consider the six grounds for relief to have been abandoned by Paoli.Superior Court Civil Rule 72(g) describes the procedure by which the Superior Court is to review an appeal. It states, "[a]ppeals shall be heard and determined by the Superior Court from the record of the proceedings below, except as may be otherwise expressly provided by statute." This Court's job is to make sure the decision below was based upon substantial facts. At trial, Lankford presented to the Court of Common Pleas a notarized Bill of Sale and a Certificate of Title to the mobile home that covered the alleged rental period. While there are many inconsistencies and conflicts in the testimony of both Paoli and Lankford, the evidence presented by Lankford is more than adequate to support the Court of Common Pleas' decision that Paoli had failed to establish a landlord-tenant relationship. The Bill of Sale and Certificate of Title showing Lankford as the owner of the mobile home is simply inconsistent with Paoli's claim that she was the owner of the mobile home and that she was renting it to Lankford and Green.
Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 72(g).
CONCLUSION
The Court of Common Pleas' decision is affirmed.