Moore v. Sizemore
| Decision Date | 06 August 1979 |
| Citation | 405 A.2d 679 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Parties | Howard W. MOORE, Jr., and Ruth M. Moore, his wife, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Glenn A. SIZEMORE and Leon R. Ellis, Partners of Sizemore & Ellis Realty Co., a Delaware Partnership, Glenn A. Sizemore, Individually, Leon R. Ellis, Individually, Lee Littleton, and William D. DeVore and Christina E. DeVore, his wife, Defendants, Appellees. |
Upon appeal from Superior Court. Reversed.
William D. Fletcher, Jr., of Schmittinger & Rodriguez, P.A., Dover, for plaintiffs.
Randy J. Holland and June E. West, of Dunlap, Holland & Eberly, Georgetown, for defendants Glenn A. Sizemore and Lee Littleton.
H. Clay Davis, III, of Davis & Marshall, Georgetown, for defendant Leon R. Ellis.
Before HERRMANN, C. J., and DUFFY and HORSEY, JJ.
This is an action for misrepresentation in connection with a land sale. The parties to the sale were Howard W. Moore, Jr., and Ruth M. Moore, his wife (plaintiffs) and William D. DeVore and Christina E. DeVore, his wife. * The real estate agents involved were Glenn A. Sizemore, Leon R. Ellis, Lee Littleton and the partnership of Sizemore & Ellis Realty Co. (defendants). The Superior Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, and plaintiffs docketed this appeal.
Taking the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, who are the non-moving parties, Matas v. Green, Del.Super., 3 Storey 473, 171 A.2d 916 (1961), the facts are these:
The DeVores wanted to sell a house and land which they owned near Seaford and they authorized Sizemore & Ellis to be their agent in arranging for a sale of the property. In May 1975, the Moores and the DeVores entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of the property. The contract did not refer to the size of the tract, but to a description of the land filed with the Recorder of Deeds. The sale was closed on July 21, 1975.
The amount of acreage was an important factor in plaintiffs' decision to buy the DeVores' property, and they say that defendants falsely represented to them that the land consisted of three acres; plaintiffs say that such misrepresentations were made with intent to deceive and defraud them, and that they relied upon the misrepresented facts.
Sometime after the Moores took title to the property, they discovered that the parcel contained only one and three-quarters acres and on May 26, 1977 they filed this action for breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and a Superior Court Judge granted the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty count, but denied it as to the remainder of the complaint. The Judge left open the possibility of a motion for summary judgment and, thereafter, defendants filed such a motion, supporting it with an affidavit by Sizemore. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to amend the complaint to add allegations of deceptive trade practices in violation of 6 Del.C. §§ 2532, 2533.
In ruling on the motions, the Trial Judge (not the same Judge who had ruled on the motions to dismiss) issued the following opinion:
Three weeks later, upon plaintiffs' motion for reargument, the Trial Judge issued an opinion stating:
"Implicit in my letter opinion in the above matter is denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend and the granting of the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Unfortunately the language used in the letter apparently created some misunderstanding.
Accordingly, the motion for reargument is denied."
It is from those rulings that plaintiffs appeal.
A summary judgment may not be granted under Rule 56 unless there are no material issues of fact, State ex rel. Mitchell v. Wolcott, Del.Supr., 7 Terry 362, 83 A.2d 759 (1951), and the moving party initially bears the burden of showing that none are present. Ebersole v. Lowengrub, Del.Supr., 4 Storey 463, 180 A.2d 467 (1962). When a motion for summary judgment is "supported" by such a showing under the Rule, the burden shifts to a non-moving party to demonstrate that there are material issues of fact. Hurtt v. Goleburn, Del.Supr., 330 A.2d 134 (1974). See also 6 Moore's Federal Practice P 56.15(3) (1976).
In this case, the complaint alleges misrepresentation, fraud and deceit by defendants about the size of the tract of land. Defendants have not filed an answer. Indeed, the only relevant document in the record, other than the complaint, is the Sizemore affidavit filed with the motion for summary judgment, which states:
"2. The property of William D. DeVore and Christina E. DeVore was advertised for sale as containing three (3) acres of land solely on the basis of representations made to Sizemore & Ellis Realty Company by William D. DeVore and Christina E. DeVore.
3. The property of William D. DeVore and Christina E. DeVore was advertised...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co.
...A.2d 433, 435 (1988). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating no genuine issue of material fact exists. Moore v. Sizemore, Del.Supr., 405 A.2d 679, 680 (1979). Once this is accomplished, the burden shifts to the opponent to prove specific facts which create a genuine issue of mat......
-
Morris v. Blake
...this affidavit has not been controverted. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the City of Milford is granted. See Moore v. Sizemore, Del.Supr., 405 A.2d 679 (1979); Nix v. Sawyer, Del.Super., 466 A.2d 407 IV(a). MERITS OF DEFENDANT SUSSEX COUNTY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before ad......
-
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
...to the nonmoving party the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and no material facts are in dispute. Moore v. Sizemore, Del.Super., 405 A.2d 679 (1979). In December, 1979, Ramada acquired the Tropicana hotel-casino in Las Vegas. In February, 1980, Ramada decided to go forward ......
-
Williams v. Dann Marine Towing, LC
...and Alverez v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. , 674 F.2d 1037, 1042–43 (5th Cir. 1982) ).25 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c) ; Moore v. Sizemore , 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979).26 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(a)–(b) (providing that either the claimant or defending party may move for summary judgment as to a......