Seaford Exec. Ctr. LLC v. Smith, C.A. No. JP17-20-003257

• Court: Court of Justice of Peace Court of Delaware
• Writing for the Court: Richard D Comly, Justice of the Peace Christopher A Bradley, Justice of the Peace Jennifer N Sammons, Justice of the Peace
• Parties: SEAFORD EXECUTIVE CENTER LLC Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. OTIS SMITH Defendant Below, Appellant
• Decision Date: 22 March 2021
• Docket Number: C.A. No. JP17-20-003257

SEAFORD EXECUTIVE CENTER LLC Plaintiff Below, Appellee
v.
OTIS SMITH Defendant Below, Appellant

C.A. No. JP17-20-003257

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY COURT NO. 17

Submitted: March 18, 2021
March 22, 2021

TRIAL DE NOVO

APPEARANCES:
Craig D. Aleman, Esquire represented the plaintiff.
Joseph B. Neutzling, Esquire represented the defendant

Richard D Comly, Justice of the Peace
Christopher A Bradley, Justice of the Peace
Jennifer N Sammons, Justice of the Peace

Page 2

ORDER ON TRIAL DE NOVO

The Court has entered a judgment or order in the following form:

On March 18, 2021 a trial de novo was held via Zoom before a three-judge panel consisting of the Honorable Richard D. Comly, Jr., the Honorable Jennifer N. Sammons and the Honorable Christopher A. Bradley.

On July 31, 2020, the plaintiff as landlord filed this action against the defendant as tenant seeking $1,500.00 in alleged unpaid rent and possession of the rental unit located at 221 High Street, Apartment 205, Seaford, Delaware.

On February 18, 2021 after a trial was held with the parties, the Honorable Scott H. Willey issued a decision in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The Court granted the plaintiff possession of the rental unit, a judgment amount of $2,250.00 with any rent owed at the per diem rate of $25.00 along with $50.00 court costs and post-judgment interest to accrue at the legal rate of 5.25% per annum. Subsequently, on February 25, 2021 the defendant filed for an appeal of the decision before a three-judge panel.

Just prior to the commencement of the trial de novo, the defendant's representative made a motion to dismiss the case alleging the plaintiff's notice of unpaid rent failed to be in proper accordance with 25 Del. Code § 5502. After a recess for consideration, the panel ruled the notice provided before the trial de novo was sufficient to proceed.

At the trial de novo, it was established that the defendant has continued to reside within the rental unit. The defendant has made several payments towards the balance owed but could not provide an exact amount outstanding. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant continues to owe rent for the month of January 2021 to the present day. Both the defendant and the plaintiff's property manager, Sarah Latsch provided testimony regarding the defendant's rent payments.

After considering all the evidence provided at the trial de novo, the panel finds by a preponderance of the evidence...