McClain v. Faraone

Citation369 A.2d 1090
PartiesTheodore R. McCLAIN, Plaintiff, v. John A. FARAONE, Defendant.
Decision Date27 January 1977
CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

Decision after trial.

William E. Wright, of Aerenson & Balick, Wilmington, for plaintiff.

Richard H. May, of Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, for defendant.

TAYLOR, Judge.

Plaintiff retained defendant to represent him in connection with the settlement for the purchase of a residential property located on Route 13 south of Tybouts Corner. Plaintiff purchased the property on March 22, 1973 for $27,000. In the transaction, plaintiff paid $1,440.21 and executed a V.A. mortgage in the amount of $27,000. As a part of the settlement costs, plaintiff paid defendant a title search fee of $367. At the time of settlement there was an outstanding judgment lien against the property which was not known to the purchaser and had not been discovered by defendant in the title search. In late 1974 the holder of the judgment lien took steps to execute upon the lien and the property was sold at Sheriff's sale on February 11, 1975 for $25,000, having been bought in by the judgment lien holder.

It is undisputed that if defendant had exercised the degree of care in performing the title search which accords with the professional standards applicable in this community, the lien would have been discovered and the settlement could not have been held without satisfactory arrangements being made to release the property from the lien. DiFilippo v. Preston, Del.Supr., 3 Storey 539, 173 A.2d 333 (1961); Peters v. Gelb, Del.Super., 303 A.2d 685 (1973), aff'd., Del.Supr., 314 A.2d 901; 59 A.L.R.3d 1176. The issue to be decided here in what damages plaintiff is entitled to recover.

I

This Court held in Clemens v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Del.Super., 28 A.2d 889 (1942) that the damages which are recoverable for breaches of duties created by contract are those injurious consequences which 'might have been foreseen or anticipated' as being likely to follow from the negligent act or breach, these consequences to be considered to be the natural and probable cnsequences. This standard applies equally whether the action is founded upon breach of contract or negligence. Ibid. See also Hajoca Corporation v. Security Trust Co., Del.Super., 2 Terry 514, 25 A.2d 378 (1942).

Defendant argues that in this fact situation, where plaintiff lost the property, plaintiff's recovery should be limited to the amount paid by plaintiff for the property, citing 1 C.J.S. Abstracts of Title § 11d, p. 396. Plaintiff argues for the loss of the value of the property, citing 1 Am.Jur.2d Abstracts of Title § 26, p. 247. I conclude that plaintiff's recovery is not limited to his out-of-pocket expenditures. Nash v. Hoopes, Del.Super., 332 A.2d 411 (1975). If the value of the property acquired at the settlement had a value which was in excess of the purchase price and that value was reasonably within the contemplation of the parties, plaintiff is entitled to recover damages based upon that value. 1

Turning to the evidence of value of the property, plaintiff's expert testified that the property had a value of $34,000 as of the approximate time of the Sheriff's sale, February 1975. He recognized that since the foreclosure sale the property had been listed for sale under the multi-list system for the price of $34,000 and that it had not been sold for that price in more than a year. The highest bona fide offer received was $29,000 which was subject to a contingency and was rejected by the seller. This witness considered that this property enjoyed the same 10% To 13% Yearly inflation as properties generally. Defendant's real estate expert found that the property's value as of February 6, 1975 was $27,000. It was his opinion this property had enjoyed no appreciation in value in the 1972--1975 period.

Other factors should be considered in determining the value of the property. The property was sold to plaintiff in this settlement for $27,000. No evidence has been introduced showing that this sale was not an arms length transaction or that there were any unusual factors which affected the sale price. Second, after being advertised for sale by the Sheriff, the property was sold at public auction for $25,000. Third, the assessed value of the property was $11,300.

I conclude that the valuation date for purposes of recovery here is the date on which defendant breached the contractual duty, namely, the settlement date of March 22, 1973. 5 Corbin on Contracts, p. 52, § 1005; Damages to Persons and Property, Oleck, pp. 506--515, §§ 255--6. 2 It is noted that plaintiff's real estate appraiser found that the value of the property in February 1975 was $34,000. He also noted that the property had been subject to an inflationary appreciation in value of from 10% To 13% Per year. Recognizing that approximately two years elapsed after the settlement until the valuation date used by plaintiff's appraiser, applying a 10% Increase per year would result in a value of $28,100 in early 1973 or $26,000 based upon the 13% Per year increase in value. Hence, there is at most a $1,000 discrepancy between the March 1973 appraisal by defendant's appraiser who found that the value of $27,000 remained constant for the period 1972 to 1975 and the figure found by plaintiff's appraiser.

I conclude that the value of the property on the date of the breach was $27,000.

II

According to the evidence, and as conceded by defendant, plaintiff incurred settlement expenses of $1,440.21. These are properly allowable as an item of damage.

III

With respect to plaintiff's claim for moving expenses, I conclude that this is an allowable item of damage and that plaintiff is entitled to recover $400.

IV

With respect to storage expenses, plaintiff claims the cost of storing his furniture for a period of 1 year after the mortgage foreclosure sale. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable expenses incurred for a reasonable period after being evicted. However, plaintiff had a duty to mitigate damages. There has been no showing that if plaintiff had applied the same monthly payment which he was making on the mortgage, excluding the portion which was applied to debt reduction, he could not have found living quarters in which he could have accommodated his furniture. I conclude that plaintiff is entitled to storage expenses for three months, representing a total of $450.

V

Plaintiff made substantial improvements in the property prior to the foreclosure. Plaintiff contends that the total expenditure was $2,255.69. Plaintiff lost the property within a reasonably short time after making the improvements. The improvements were consistent with the conditional and residential usage of the property and hence were reasonably foreseeable at the time of plaintiff's acquisition of the property in reliance upon defendant's title search. Plaintiff is entitled to recover this item.

VI

Plaintiff next asserts that he is entitled to recover attorney's fee for prosecuting this action against defendant. Plaintiff does not contend that he incurred expenses defending his title against the outstanding lien or in determining what his rights were as to the property or in attempting to resolve the matter more favorably to him. Plaintiff's expenditures are for legal services for collecting on his claim against defendant. The general rule in this State is that a party must bear his own attorney fees and cannot expect to recover those fees from the opponent. Honaker v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Del.Super., 313 A.2d 900 (1973); Great American Indemnity Co. v. State, 32 Del.Ch. 562, 88 A.2d 426 (1952); Maurer v. International Re-Insurance Corp., 33 Del.Ch 456, 95 A.2d 827 (1953). While certain exceptions to this general rule have been recognized, particularly in equity matters, plaintiff has not shown that any of these exceptions are applicable to this case. Cf. Walsh v. Hotel Corporation of America, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 458 (1967); Mencher v. Sachs, Del.Supr., 164 A.2d 320 (1960).

VII

Plaintiff also seeks damages for loss of reputation, embarrassment and emotional distress resulting from the foreclosure and his loss of the property. The breach of duty which is the basis of plaintiff's claims does not involve wilful or wanton conduct of defendant. Under the facts presented in this case, it is clear that the failure to report the judgment lien to plaintiff was a result of defendant's failure to discover the lien on the judgment docket, which did not rise above the quality of negligence. The evidence indicates that when the lien came to the attention of defendant, he immediately informed plaintiff of the problem, and did attempt to negotiate with the attorney for the lien holder to obtain a release of the property from the lien and that defendant did offer to pay $31,000 to the lien holder for the release of the property and this offer was rejected by the lien holder. These facts fail to show any element of ill will, malice or intention to cause injury to the plaintiff which would support a claim for punitive damages. Cf. Nash v. Hoopes, supra. The service which defendant undertook to perform was the search of the title to the property and to report any defects or matters which would prevent plaintiff and his mortgagee from obtaining clear title at settlement. It contemplated no physical impact and no occurrence of violent, repulsive or inflammatory nature which would be likely to generate serious emotional or psychological results. The general rule is that in an action based upon contract, un-accompanied by a related affirmative tortious physical act and unaccompanied by physical injury, mental suffering is not an element to be considered in awarding compensatory damages. Restatement on Contracts § 341; 5 Corbin on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Holliday v. Jones
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 1989
    ...P.2d 88; Green v. Leibowitz (1986) 118 A.D.2d 756, 500 N.Y.S.2d 146; Perkio v. Prunier (1981) 121 N.H. 871, 436 A.2d 72; McClain v. Faraone (Del.Supr.1977) 369 A.2d 1090; Deno v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co. (App.1980) 126 Ariz. 527, 617 P.2d 35; Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazier and Mu......
  • Timmerman v. Eich
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • September 12, 2011
    ...of legal malpractice.”); see also Smith v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 136 (1992); McClain v. Faraone, 369 A.2d 1090, 1092, 1094 (Del.Super.Ct.1977) (emotional distress resulting from loss of residential property was not natural and probable consequence of negli......
  • Payton v. Abbott Labs
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1982
    ...593 P.2d 668 (1979) (en banc); Robb v. Pennsylvania R.R., 8 Storey 454, 58 Del. 454, 210 A.2d 709 (1965). Accord, McClain v. Faraone, 369 A.2d 1090, 1095 (Del.Super.1977); Gilper v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc., 302 A.2d 740 (D.C.Ct.App.1973); Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons N.W., 100 Idaho 840, 606......
  • Reiver v. MURDOCH & WALSH, PA,
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • January 7, 1985
    ...action by purchaser against vendor for failure to convey good title to property when vendor's error was unintentional); McClain v. Faraone, 369 A.2d 1090 (Del.Super.1977) (plaintiff was not permitted to recover punitive damages from attorney who was formerly employed by plaintiff, for attor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 12 PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINERAL TITLE EXAMINERS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Mineral Title Examination III (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...aff'd 92 N.J.L. 631, 105 A.894 (1918); Renkert v. Title Guar. Trust Co., 102 Mo.App.267, 76 S.W.641 (1903). [32] McClain v. Faraone, 369 A.2d 1090 (Del. 1977). [33] Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi, 276 S.W. 190, 191 (Tex. Comm. App. 1925), 291 S.W. 538 (Tex. Comm. App. 1927), on later ap......
  • CHAPTER 9 PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINERAL TITLE EXAMINERS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Mineral Title Examination II (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...aff'd 92 N.J.L. 631, 105 A.894 (1918); Renkert v. Title Guar. Trust Co., 102 Mo.App.267, 76 S.W.641 (1903). [29] McClain v. Faraone, 369 A.2d 1090 (Del. 1977). [30] Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi, 276 SW. 190, 191 (Tex. Comm. App. 1925), 291 S.W. 538 (Tex. Comm. App. 1927), on later app......
  • Attorney Liability for Examination and Certification of Title to Real Estate
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 12-7, July 1983
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Smyth, 117 N.J.L. 412, 189 A. 93 (1937). 25. Supra, note 14. 26. Gleason v. Title Guarantee Co., 317 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1963). 27. 369 A.2d 1090 (Del.Super.Ct. 1977). 28. Republic Oil Co. v. Danziger, ____Mass.App.____, 400 N.E.2d 1315 (1980). 29. Registered Country Homebuilders, Inc. v. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT