Opinion
C.A. No. 02A-03-001
Date Submitted: November 20, 2002
Date Decided: February 28, 2003
Neil F. Dignon, Esquire Brown, Shields, Beauregard Chasanov
Eric G. Mooney, Esquire
Dear Counsel:
This is my decision on Mark J. Vugrinec's ("Vugrinec") appeal from the Court of Common Pleas' decision to award Penny Massey ("Massey") $15,000 in damages resulting from Vugrinec's breach of his contract with Massey. I affirm the Court of Common Pleas' decision for the reasons stated herein.
Vugrinec traded as First State Homes, Inc.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This appeal arises from a contract to place a manufactured home (the "Home") on Lot Number 24, Shiloh Farms, Laurel, Delaware. Massey, the property owner, and Vugrinec, the contractor, executed the original contract on October 28, 1996. Vugrinec hired Crown Masonry ("Crown") to pour the Home's footer and foundation. After the Home was delivered, Massey and Vugrinec discovered that the foundation would not properly support the Home. Crown returned to the site and attempted to rectify the problem, but its response was not sufficient. When Vugrinec refused to cure the foundation's defects, Massey dismissed him as her general contractor and refused to pay his final draw. Massey hired others to remedy the Home's foundation problems.
Massey filed suit against Vugrinec in Justice of the Peace Court No. 17 for $15,000 on January 23, 1998. Vugrinec responded with a counterclaim seeking $12,292, the amount of the unpaid draw. Massey was awarded $15,000 after a trial. Vugrinec appealed and sought a trial de novo in the Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas found that Vugrinec had breached the contract and that Massey had proven $34,320.60 in damages. After reserving judgment on the proper award for Massey, the Court of Common Pleas reduced Massey's damages to $22,028.60 to reflect the savings from the unpaid draw of $12,292. Subsequently, the Court of Common Pleas adjusted Massey's award to $15,000 because she initiated the suit in a limited jurisdiction justice of the peace court. Vugrinec appealed the Court of Common Pleas' decision to this Court on March 20, 2002. Vugrinec's appeal was dismissed for want of action on October 17, 2002, but was revived after Vugrinec filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal.
DISCUSSION
Vugrinec appeal requires the Court to examine the impact of a court's jurisdictional limitations on a plaintiff's recovery. This is a question of law. This Court reviews appeals from the Court of Common Pleas as the Supreme Court would consider a similar appeal from this Court. Baker v. Connell, 488 A.2d 1303, 1309 (Del. 1985). Errors of law are reviewed de novo. Downs v. State, 570 A.2d 1142 (Del. 1990).
Vugrinec appeals the award of damages, not the Court of Common Pleas' ruling for Massey on the breach of contract claim and against Vugrinec on the counterclaim.
Vugrinec argues the Court of Common Pleas erred in calculating Massey's damages. Massey limited her maximum recovery to $15,000 when she filed suit in a justice of the peace court. According to Vugrinec, any award granted for his counterclaim must be deducted from the amount the court could legally award to Massey, not her provable damages. Therefore, Vugrinec contends the Court of Common Pleas should have awarded Massey $2,708, the difference between $15,000, the justice of the peace's jurisdictional ceiling, and $12,292, the amount of the unpaid draw. The trial court found Vugrinec in breach of contract and denied his counterclaim. Thus, Vugrinec's argument is erroneous as his counterclaim did not prevail.
The docket entry for the Court of Common Pleas's decision on the counterclaim states: "AS TO COUNTERCLAIM; MR. VUGRINEC DUE SET-OFF ON LAST DRAW."
Massey defends the Court of Common Pleas' award. She denies owing Vugrinec money, but admits Vugrinec may receive a credit for the unpaid draw. Acknowledging her recovery is limited to $15,000, Massey seeks to affirm the decision of the Court of Common Pleas.
The justice of the peace court's jurisdiction is determined by the amount sought in the complaint's ad damnum clause, not the plaintiff's actual damages. Council of the 1980 Superfine Lane Owners' Assoc. v. Chalfant, 1990 WL 990088 (Del. CCP), at 2. Regardless of the plaintiff's provable damages, the justice of the peace court's jurisdiction dictates that the amount in controversy cannot exceed $15,000. 10 Del. C. § 9301(a). Thus, when the plaintiff seeks the justice of the peace court's jurisdiction, this act "should be regarded as a waiver of the amount [sought] in excess of $15,000." Id., at 3; see also Bruno v. Kelly, 258 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1977); Fentress v. Pruden, 39 S.E.2d 240 (Va. 1946) (plaintiff "remits" any amount in excess of the court's jurisdiction). This waiver survives appeals by either party to higher courts. 10 Del. C. § 9572(b); See Cooper's Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Smith, 250 A.2d 507, 508 (Del.Super. 1969); State v. Wright, 3 A.2d 74 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1938). Regardless of the damages proven by Massey, filing the original complaint in a justice of the peace court remitted all provable damages above $15,000 and limited her recovery to $15,000. A court may recognize damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit so long as the actual award does not exceed $15,000. Cf. Montero v. Manelski, Del. Super., C.A. 81A-SE-3, Stiftel, P.J. (Dec. 27, 1982) ("The amount of any award cannot exceed the jurisdictional amount even though the claim may exceed the jurisdictional amount. The Court has the right to award judgment up to the jurisdictional amount."); Meyers v. Langley, 638 N.E.2d 875, 878 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994) (upholding a lower court's decision to deduct a defendant's security deposit from the damages caused by the defendant before imposing the court's jurisdictional ceiling on plaintiff's award). Vugrinec's breach of contract caused Massey $34,320 in damages; however, this figure must be reduced to account for the amount Vugrinec's breach saved Massey. See Mobile Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lindell Radiology, P.A., Del. Super., No. 83C-AU-66, Stiftel, P.J. (July 29, 1985); McLaughlin v. Union-Leader Corp., 116 A.2d 489 (N.H. 1955); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 347(d) ("[The] cost avoided is subtracted from the loss in value caused by the breach in calculating his damages."). Vugrinec's breach released Massey from her obligation to pay the contract's final draw, saving Massey $12,292 and reducing her provable damages to $22,028. The Court of Common Pleas acknowledged Massey's actual damages, but limited her award to $15,000 to reflect the justice of the peace court's jurisdictional parameters. This award adhered to the justice of the peace court's jurisdictional requirements. Therefore, the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
SUMMARY
In summary, Vugrinec's appeal of the Court of Common Pleas' decision is denied. This Court affirms the Court of Common Pleas' award to Massey of $15,000.
IT IS SO ORDERED.