Archelle Garnett v. Delaney Wilson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ARCHELLE GARNETT, Plaintiff, v. DELANEY WILSON, Defendant. ) ) ) ) C.A. No. CPU4-11-003652 ) ) ) Archelle Garnett, 511 Ilse Drive, Newark, Delaware 19713, Self Represented Plaintiff. Delaney Wilson, 2826 Branthurst Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina 28269, Self Represented Defendant. (Also mailed to 5826 Branthurst Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina 28269) JUDGMENT ORDER in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant On June 20, 2011, Plaintiff Archelle Garnett filed the Complaint against Defendant Delaney Wilson, asserting a cause of action for breach of contract arising out of an agreement between the parties to share costs associated with a jointly owned timeshare property located in South Carolina. On July 11, 2011, Defendant filed an Answer. On March 12, 2012, the Court held a trial on the Complaint. Defendant received notice of the trial date but failed to appear at trial. Judgment of default is therefore entered in favor of Plaintiff. With respect to damages, Plaintiff was sworn and presented testimony in support of an award as set forth below. In a breach of contract action, Plaintiff must prove each of three elements by a preponderance of the evidence.1 A preponderance of the evidence exists when the body of evidence supporting a conclusion is greater than the body of evidence that does not support that conclusion.2 First, Plaintiff must show that a contract existed. Second, Plaintiff must establish that Defendant breached an obligation imposed by the contract. Finally, Plaintiff must prove that she suffered damages as a result of Defendant s alleged breach. The Court finds that a contract existed between the parties with respect to the timeshare at issue. Specifically, the parties contracted in January 2009 to purchase a timeshare located in South Carolina for $14,299.01. Consistent with the agreement, Plaintiff paid a down payment in the amount of $4,987.16. The parties entered into a loan agreement to finance the remaining $9,261.85. The loan was to be repaid in monthly payments of $147.66. The parties agreed that Defendant would make the $147.66 monthly payments, and Plaintiff would pay $37.17 per month for the required maintenance fees. From July 2009 through February 2010, Defendant performed his obligations under the terms of the agreement by making monthly payments of $147.66. Defendant breached the contract in March 2010 by failing to make the 1 Interim Healthcare, Inc. v. Spherion Corp., 884 A.2d 513, 548 (Del. Super. 2005); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 237 A.2d 708, 711 (Del. 1967). 2 Reynolds, 237 A.2d at 711. 2 monthly payments $147.66. Plaintiff made the monthly payments of $147.66 for the following 24 months, from March 2010 through March 2012. Plaintiff also paid the $37.17 per month for the required maintenance fees, per the agreement between the parties. Thereafter, Defendant demanded that Plaintiff remove his name from the timeshare agreement. To facilitate the removal of Defendant s name from the timeshare deed, Plaintiff paid $100.00 in administrative fees. Nevertheless, Defendant refused to execute the necessary documents to have his name removed from the deed. Therefore, both parties are still identified as owners of the timeshare and both remain liable on the loan and for the property. In an effort to mitigate her losses, Plaintiff has advertised the property for sale, incurring $984.00 in expenses. Therefore, the Court finds there was a contract; Defendant breached the contract; and Plaintiff suffered damages of $4,133.84, as follows: $3,543.84 in monthly loan payments ($147.66 x 24 months); $100.00 in fees to remove Defendant s name; and $492.00 (representing half of the expenses to sell the property). 3 NOW, THEREFORE, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $4,133.84. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of March, 2012. Andrea L. Rocanelli ______________________________ The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
