Jessica Flagler v. Courtney Hill and Bailey Ingersoll

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

JESSICA FLAGLER, )

)

Defendant-Below / Appellant, )

)

v. ) C.A. No.: CPU4-25-001289

)

COURTNEY HILL and, )

BAILEY INGERSOLL )

)

)

Plaintiffs-Below / Appellees.

Submitted: October 28, 2025

Decided: November 13, 2025

DECISION AFTER TRIAL

Jessica Flagler, Self-Represented Appellant.

Courtney Hill and Bailey Ingersoll, Self/-Represented Appellees.

Manning, J.

This is an appeal from a Justice of the Peace Court decision dated February

26, 2025.' The dispute in this matter concerns a security deposit, paid to Defendant-

Below/Appellant Jessica Flagler? (“Landlord”) by Plaintiffs-Below/Appellees,

Courtney Hill and Bailey Ingersoll, (“Tenants”) as part of their tenancy in

Landlord’s property at 312 Olga Road, Wilmington, DE 19805 (the “Property”).

Tenants allege that Landlord wrongfully retained their $970 security deposit at the

conclusion of their tenancy. Not surprisingly, Landlord disagrees; she alleges that

the security deposit was properly withheld in accordance with the Delaware

Landlord Tenant Code.

On October 28, 2025, this Court held a trial de novo on the matter. The

evidence consisted of testimony from Landlord; Landlord’s husband, Timothy

Flagler; Tenants; and hardwood floor expert, Jim Kramer. Further, both parties

submitted exhibits for the Court’s consideration. This is the Court’s decision after

trial.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Landlord initiated this appeal on March 7, 2025, by filing a Notice of Appeal

in this Court. Landlord improperly attached to the Notice of Appeal a complaint in

'10 Del. C. § 9571.

2 Although the case originally included both Landlord and her husband, Timothy Flagler, the Court

dismissed Timothy Flagler from the case at trial because, during the relevant period, Mr. Flagler

was not married to Landlord, was not on the Property’s deed and, by Tenants own account, did not

otherwise act in a landlord capacity.

which she demanded an award of $970 for the amount of Tenants’ security deposit,

plus an additional $830 for “repair costs.” However, as the Court explained at trial,

this complaint was legally ineffective as CCP Civil Rule 72.3(b) and (f)—which

govern appeals from the Justice of the Peace Court brought pursuant to 10 Del. C. §

9571—the same issues must be raised on appeal as were asserted below by the

plaintiff-below filing the complaint on appeal. In this case, Tenants were the

plaintiffs below, thus Landlord’s complaint was of no legal effect.>_ Tenants’ valid

Complaint on Appeal was filed On April 2, 2025.

On August 25, 2025, Tenants filed an Amended Complaint, which restated

their initial complaint’s assertions and sought additional damages for parking,

certified mail, wage garnishment fees, subpoena fees, and lost wages for both

Tenants, totaling $729.25. However, as Landlord had already filed an Answer, CCP

Civ. R. 15 requires Tenants to seek leave of court prior to filing any amended

complaint, and they failed to do so. As such, the additional claims raised in Tenants’

Amended Complaint did not proceed to trial.

FACTS

The parties entered an oral agreement whereby Tenants rented the Property

from Landlord commencing March 2022. Pursuant to the oral agreement, Tenants

3To be effective, Landlord’s request for additional damages should have been filed as a

counterclaim once the Complaint on Appeal was filed.

3

furnished a security deposit of $970. At the conclusion of the tenancy on April 28,

2024, Tenants were disappointed to learn that Landlord would not return their

security deposit because she believed that damage to the hardwood floor in the

entryway exceeded normal wear and tear. At this point, the once-pleasant

relationship between the parties soured; by the day of trial, the acrimony between

the parties was palpable. While both parties testified to a litany of perceived slights

committed by the other, this Court’s decision is limited only to the evidence

pertaining to the sole issue at hand: if the damage to the hardwood floors exceeded

normal wear and tear.

It is undisputed that the entryway flooring bore no damage when Tenants

assumed possession. It is also undisputed that, when Tenants vacated the Property,

visible markings on the entryway flooring were left in their wake. To establish

whether that damage exceeded normal wear and tear, both parties relied on the

testimony of hardwood flooring expert Jim Kramer.‘

Mr. Kramer defined “normal wear and tear,” as “not typically anything that

gouges the wood or puts in deep scratches.” Referring to photographs of the post-

tenancy Property flooring, he described the damage as “not normal wear and tear,”

4 Mr. Kramer is the owner of Delaware Valley Hardwoods and has been in the wood flooring

business for 30 years. He had been a member of the National Wood Flooring Association for 18

years as a Certified Advanced Master Craftsman as well as an Inspector. He explained that his

wife—not himself—evaluated the floor and provided the estimate, and that he had never

personally seen The Property’s floors in person. However, when analyzing photographs provided

to him at the witness stand, Mr. Kramer was able to testify regarding the condition of the floor.

4

but rather “damage” to the floor. According to Mr. Kramer, exotic woods—like the

one in The Property—are “typically very dense woods and it takes a lot of wear in

one area for [damage] like this to happen.” He speculated that the damage likely

originated from wetness in the floor which caused the wood to “swell,” thus making

it more susceptible to damage in high traffic areas.°

Mr. Kramer also testified as to the necessary repairs and associated costs to

remedy the floor. Specifically, he testified that the wood in the entryway is “an

99

exotic species,” possibly “Brazilian Walnut or something similar.” He explained

that with this type of exotic wood floor, it would be impossible to fix the damage

without refinishing the entire floor, because “once you touch one board . . . the color

will be drastically different, so the whole floor has to be refinished together for an

acceptable appearance.”° He explained that the minimum estimated cost for his

company, Delaware Valley Hardwoods, to refinish floors was $1,800.

DISCUSSION

It is clear from the evidence adduced at trial that the flooring bore little to no

noticeable damage when Tenants moved in, and damage to the entryway flooring

was visible upon Tenants’ departure. Thus, the issue before the Court is whether

> Mr. Kramer also noted damage from something known in the flooring industry as “wind shake”

which presents in wood that experienced bending while still a tree. This bending causes

“delamination in the grain” within the tree, which can make the floor more susceptible to swelling

if exposed to moisture. He identified one instance of “wind shake” in the flooring, and he did not

describe that piece of damage as beyond normal wear and tear.

6 Td. At 10:44 am.

Tenants caused damage to the Property which exceeded normal wear and tear and,

if so, whether the cost to repair such damage meets or exceeds the security deposit.

As an initial matter, the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code (the “Code”) applies

to both landlords and tenants, regardless of whether the rental agreement is written

or oral.’ In an action for damages under the Code, the burden is on the plaintiff to

prove the alleged damages—or lack thereof—by a preponderance of the evidence.®

The Code permits a landlord to “require the payment of security deposit,” the

purpose of which is, among other things, to “reimburse the landlord for actual

damages caused to the premises by the tenant which exceed normal wear and tear,

or which cannot be corrected by painting and ordinary cleaning.”!° “Normal wear

and tear is defined as ‘the deterioration in the condition of a property or premises by

the ordinary and reasonable use of such property or premises.’”'! If it is shown “that

damages could only be remedied by repairs above and beyond normal wear and tear,

7 See 25 Del. C. § 5101(a) (“This Code shall regulate and determine all legal rights, remedies and

obligations of all parties and beneficiaries of any rental agreement of a rental unit within this State,

wherever executed. Any rental agreement, whether written or oral, shall be unenforceable insofar

as the agreement or any provision thereof conflicts with any provision of this Code, and is not

expressly authorized herein. The unenforceability shall not affect other provisions of the agreement

which can be given effect without the void provision.”) See also Brown v. Robyn Realty Co., 367

A.2d 183, 188 (Del. Super. Ct. 1976) (“As used in the statute, the term ‘rental agreement’ includes

an oral agreement.”’).

8 Leipold and Mangels v. Melgarejo, Del. Com. Pl., Ca. No. CPU4-13-000349 at 5, Smalls, C.J.

(April 30, 2014); Holveck v. Christiana Meadows Apartments, 2022 WL 1490397 (Del. Com. PI.

May 11, 2022).

9 25 Del. C. § 5514(a).

10 95 Del. C. § 5514(c)(1) (emphasis added).

' Z7_Man Propoerties, LLC v. Garrity, 2014 WL 3534976, at *5 (Del. Com. Mar. 7, 2014) (quoting

25 Del. C. § 5141(19)).

landlord can use the security deposit to cover the costs associated with repairs of

such actual damages.”!”

A. Damage to the floor exceeded normal wear and tear

The testimony of the sole expert witness at trial, Mr. Kramer, is dispositive on

the issue of wear and tear to the flooring. Referring to the photographs in evidence

of the damage to the flooring, Mr. Kramer testified that the depicted damage was

beyond what he would consider typical wear and tear. The Court finds Mr. Kramer’s

testimony credible. Mr. Kramer was the lone expert in this case and testified for

both parties. Neither party provided an alternative expert, and neither party attacked

Mr. Kramer’s credibility nor provided the Court any reason to doubt his expertise.

Accordingly, I find that the damage to the hardwood floor in the entry way of the

property was beyond normal wear and tear.

B. The cost to repair

The cost to reimburse injured parties in landlord-tenant disputes is an issue

considered previously by this court. In Leipold and Mangels v. Melgarejo, the Court

stated that “an adequate legal remedy may be found in the form of damages based

upon contract law.”!? The Court in that matter held that “‘[t]he measure of damages

2 Ca. No. CPU4-13-000349 at 5, Smalls, C.J. (April 30, 2014).

13 Td. at 15.

is the loss actually sustained as a result of the breach of contract.’”’* It stated, “‘[o]ne

who is injured by the breach of a contract is entitled to compensation for the injury

compensation should be such as will place him in the same position that he

would have been in if the contract had been performed.’”!° The landlord in that case

was awarded the full cost to repair the damage to its property—above the value of

the security deposit.'®

Again, Mr. Kramer’s expert testimony is the sole barometer available to the

Court by which damages can be measured. He explained that when dealing with an

exotic wood such as the one in the entry way of the Property, individual board

replacement or repair is not a feasible solution because the color difference on the

affected boards following repair would be too vast. It was Mr. Kramer’s expert

opinion that the only way to repair the floor would be to refinish the entire entry

way—an endeavor which would cost an estimated $1,800."

Notably, the estimated cost to repair ($1,800) far exceeds the security deposit

($970). However, as previously discussed, Landlord’s effective filings do not state

14 Td, (quoting J.J. White, Inc. v. Metropolitan Merchandise Mart, 107 A.2d 892, 894 (Del. Super.

1954)).

15 C_A. No.: CPU4-13-000349 at 15 (quoting J.J. White, Inc. v. Metropolitan Merchandise Mart,

107 A.2d 892, 894 (Del. Super. 1954)).

16 Td. at 16.

!17 The Court notes that Landlord also introduced evidence of cost to repair by way of additional

estimates. However, those estimates came from a time after succeeding tenants assumed

possession of The Property, meaning the condition of the floor could have been altered since

Tenants vacated The Property. Moreover, all proffered estimates exceeded $970 and, as discussed

herein, damages cannot be awarded beyond the security deposit.

8

a counterclaim for damages beyond the retained security deposit. The only amount

at issue here is the $970 security deposit retained by Landlord.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court finds that Tenants have not proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that they incurred damages as a result of Landlord

withholding their security deposit. Accordingly, Landlord is entitled to the entire

$970 at issue. An appropriate order will issue.

Bradley V Manning

Judge

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF

DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

JESSICA FLAGLER, )

Defendant-Below / Appellant,

V. C.A. No.: CPU4-25-001289

COURTNEY HILL and,

BAILEY INGERSOLL )

Plaintiffs-Below / Appellees.

ORDER

AND NOW, on this 13" day of November 2025, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY

entered in favor of Jessica Flagler against Courtney Hill and Bailey Ingersoll in the

amount of $970.00, plus post-judgment interest at the legal rate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

gihK—s

Bradley V. Manning

Judge