Hayward v. King ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
H. PRESTON HAYWARD and §
CORA L. HAYWARD, § No. 202, 2015
§
Defendants Below, § Court Below–Superior Court
Appellants, § of the State of Delaware in and
§ for New Castle County
v. §
§ C.A. No. N13C-07-232
WILLIAM J. KING and DIANE §
HAGY-KING, §
§
Plaintiffs Below, §
Appellees. §
Submitted: August 28, 2015
Decided: November 9, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 9th day of November 2015, upon consideration of the briefs of
the parties and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that:
(1) This appeal is from the Superior Court’s decision in a civil
action between next-door neighbors over a shared property line. After a
bench trial, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, William King
and Diane Hagy-King, on their claims for a declaratory judgment and
ejectment and on their application for fees and costs. The defendants,
Preston and Cora Hayward, have appealed the Superior Court’s bench trial
rulings, verdict, and order on fees and costs.
(2) The disagreement between the Kings and the Haywards arose
during the summer of 2012 when the Kings came to believe that a fence
installed by the Haywards was encroaching on the Kings’ property. The
disagreement escalated into an acrimonious dispute, which led to the filing
of criminal charges in the Court of Common Pleas1 and to this Superior
Court civil action filed by the Kings in July 2013. The Kings were
represented by counsel until mid-September 2014, when their counsel was
granted leave to withdraw. The Haywards appeared pro se throughout the
Superior Court proceedings.
(3) The record reflects that, in August 2013, the Kings served the
Haywards with requests for production of documents and for permission to
survey the Haywards’ property as necessary to advance the action. When
the Haywards denied any obligation or intention to respond to discovery and
did not respond, the Haywards filed a motion to compel. The Haywards did
not appear at the hearing on the motion to compel. By order dated October
14, 2013, the Superior Court granted the motion and gave the Haywards
1
From the Court of Common Pleas case dockets in Cr. ID Nos. 1210011882,
1305023638, and 1305018619, the Court takes judicial notice that Mr. Hayward was
arrested and charged with Harassment in October 2012 and with noncompliance of bond
in May 2013. Mr. King was arrested and charged with Harassment, Criminal Mischief,
and Criminal Trespass in May 2013. After a failed attempt at mediation, all charges were
dismissed in May 2014.
2
thirty days to answer all written discovery and provide written permission to
survey the property. Unfortunately, the Haywards did not comply with the
October 14 order. Instead, two days before the thirty-day deadline, the
Haywards moved for a protective order, which would relieve them from
having to respond to the requests for discovery. The Kings filed a response
to the motion for a protective order and moved for sanctions.
(4) After a hearing on December 9, 2013, the Superior Court issued
an order denying the motion for a protective order, finding that the Kings’
“filings in this matter have been wholly proper.” The court ordered the
Haywards to provide written answers to discovery and directed the Kings’
counsel to notify the court if, after reviewing the response, a survey still was
needed. The court held the motion for sanctions in abeyance pending the
submission of a detailed list of the Kings’ litigation costs.
(5) By letter dated December 16, 2013, counsel requested that the
Superior Court issue an order granting permission to retain a professional
surveyor to conduct a survey, take photographs, and stake the shared
boundary between their property and the Haywards’ property. The
Haywards opposed the request. After a hearing on January 27, 2014, the
Superior Court issued an order that granted the request and provided that the
3
costs for the survey would be paid by the Kings with leave to request
reimbursement at a later point.
(6) When the survey was completed, the Kings moved for a partial
summary judgment on their claims for a declaratory judgment and
ejectment. The Superior Court directed a response to the motion and
scheduled the motion for oral argument, which prompted the Haywards to
file repetitive requests for an extension of time to submit the response and
for a continuance of the oral argument date. Following oral argument, the
Superior Court denied the summary judgment motion “for the reasons set
forth on the record” and set up a scheduling conference for trial.
(7) At the pretrial conference in September 2014, the Superior
Court amended the parties’ pretrial stipulation to reflect that the Kings had
withdrawn their claims of physical and emotional injury and for medical
expenses. Also, the Superior Court struck the Kings’ claim that the
Haywards were obstinate in their rejection of “any bona fide attempt to
resolve the situation” and the Haywards’ counterclaims for loss of capital
investment, trespass, slander, intimidation, false accusations, property
destruction, and physical and emotional injury. The court took under
advisement the parties’ cross-claims for monetary sanctions for alleged
improper litigation conduct.
4
(8) The Superior Court held a bench trial on October 9, 2014 and
issued its verdict on November 24, 2014. The Superior Court ruled in favor
of the Kings and issued a declaratory judgment and order of ejectment,
finding that the Kings were the record owners and out of possession of the
0.7 foot strip of land enclosed by the Haywards’ fence. The Superior Court
ordered the Haywards to remove the fence.
(9) After the fence was removed, the Superior Court directed the
parties to submit their applications for attorney’s fees and costs. By order
dated April 9, 2015, the court denied the Haywards’ application and partially
granted the Kings’ application. The court noted that its award on fees and
costs included a sanction for the Haywards’ discovery violations. This
appeal followed.
(10) On appeal, the Haywards contend that the Superior Court erred
when i) amending the pretrial stipulation to eliminate their counterclaims; ii)
admitting expert witness testimony; and iii) denying their affirmative
defense of adverse possession. The Haywards also challenge the order on
fees and costs, claiming that the sanction was unwarranted, that the fees
requested were excessive, and that the award improperly included fees
incurred by the Kings in connection with the Court of Common Pleas
criminal case.
5
(11) This Court reviews the Superior Court’s findings of facts for
abuse of discretion and the court’s legal conclusions de novo.2 We review
the order on fees and costs for abuse of discretion.3
(12) Appellate review is limited in this case due to the Haywards’
failure to provide the Court with the transcript of the Superior Court’s
proceedings.4 As the appellants, the Haywards were required to order the
transcript “of all evidence relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion”
“to give this Court a fair and accurate account of the context in which the
claim of error occurred.”5
(13) Without the bench trial transcript, the Court is unable to
evaluate the merit of the Haywards’ claim challenging the expert witness’
testimony and the adverse possession claim, which the Superior Court
concluded was without merit based on the parties’ trial testimony. Also,
having considered the available record and the parties’ briefs, the Court
concludes that the Haywards have not demonstrated that the Superior Court
erred when striking their counterclaims from the pretrial stipulation.
2
Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671, 673 (Del. 1972).
3
Black v. Staffieri, 2014 WL 814122, at *3 (Del. Feb. 27, 2014) (citing William Penn
P’ship v. Saliba, 13 A.3d 749, 758 (Del. 2011)).
4
Seramone-Isaacs v. Mells, 873 A.2d 301, 304 (Del. 2005) (citing Tricoche v. State, 525
A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987)).
5
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 14(e).
6
Without the transcript, the Court has no idea if the Haywards objected to the
exclusion of the claims. And having reviewed for plain error,6 we find no
error from the exclusion of claims that the court apparently found were not
germane to the underlying declaratory judgment and ejectment action.7
(14) The Court also finds no basis to disturb the order on fees and
costs. The Superior Court is required to determine the reasonableness of a
request for attorney’s fees and did so in this case.8 After analyzing the
reasonableness of the Kings’ request, the Superior Court awarded $1,479.70
in expert witness fees and $24,244.00 in attorney’s fees and related litigation
costs, noting that the latter amount included an appropriate sanction for the
Haywards’ discovery violations. The Court finds no support for the
Haywards’ conclusory claim that the award of fees and costs includes the
Kings’ attorney’s fees in the Court of Common Pleas criminal case.
(15) Although the general rule is that parties bear their own
litigation fees and expenses, there are exceptions to the rule that apply in this
6
Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (providing that plain error is
error that is “so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and
integrity of the trial process”).
7
See Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(f) (providing that the court may strike immaterial matter
from any pleading); Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Goldfeder, 2014 WL 7692441, at *4
(Del. Super. Dec. 9, 2014) (dismissing counterclaim unrelated to subject matter of
action), aff’d, 86 A.3d 1118 (Del. 2014).
8
Mahini v. EDIX Media Group, Inc., 935 A.2d 242, 245 (Del. 2007).
7
case.9 The Superior Court has the authority to award fees and costs and
impose sanctions for a party’s excessively litigious conduct and when a
party’s conduct necessitates a motion to compel.10 Also, in a declaratory
judgment proceeding the court “may make such award of costs as may seem
equitable and just.”11
(16) In this case, the available record fairly reflects that the
Haywards engaged in an exasperating course of conduct throughout the
Superior Court proceedings that unnecessarily prolonged the litigation and
caused increased fees and costs. In what should have been a straightforward
case, the Superior Court was required to hold three hearings to address
problems caused by the Haywards’ refusal and avoidance of the Kings’
reasonable requests for discovery. Also, the Haywards’ persistent disregard
of procedural rules and orders interfered with the orderly and efficient
administration of justice for all involved.
9
Blue Hen Mech., Inc. v. Christian Bros. Risk Pooling Tr., 117 A.3d 549, 559 (Del.
2015).
10
Id. at 558-60. Accord Cebenka v. Upjohn, 559 A.2d 1219, 1226 (Del. 1989) (holding
that the Superior Court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions for violations of
orders entered under Rule 16); Johnston v. Arbitrium (Cayman Islands) Handels AG, 720
A.2d 542, 545-46 (Del. 1998) (applying “bad faith” exception to general rule that parties
bear their own litigation fees and expenses); Burge v. Fidelity Bond and Mortg. Co., 648
A.2d 414, 421-22 (Del. 1994) (noting exception to the general rule on fees and costs
when the circumstances of an individual case mandate that the court, in its discretion,
assess counsel fees).
11
10 Del. C. § 6510.
8
(17) Although pro se litigants are afforded some leniency in
presenting their cases, as the Haywards were in this case, pro se litigants
must abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants and must
comply with the orders of the court.12 Under the circumstances as reflected
in the available record, and under the abuse of discretion standard of review,
this Court cannot say that the Superior Court’s order of fees and costs was
arbitrary, capricious, or clearly wrong.13
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
12
Draper v. Med. Ctr. of Del., 767 A.2d 796, 799 (Del. 2001).
13
Chavin v. PNC Bank, 873 A.2d 287, 289 (Del. 2005).
9