WILSON v. TRADER, 804 A.2d 1067 (Del. 2002)

DAVID L. WILSON and CAROLYN D. WILSON, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. KATHLEEN S. TRADER, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 148, 2002Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: July 9, 2002
Decided: August 15, 2002

Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County C. A. No. 01A-06-002.

Affirmed.

Unpublished opinion is below.

DAVID L. WILSON and CAROLYN D. WILSON, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. KATHLEEN S. TRADER, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 148, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: July 9, 2002 Decided: August 15, 2002

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.

JOSEPH T. WALSH, Justice.

ORDER
This 15th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it appears that:

(1) This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision which, in turn, affirmed a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, in a debt action. Appellants, David L. Wilson and Carolyn D. Wilson, contend that both the trial court, and the Superior Court on review, erred as a matter of law in rejecting appellants’ claims of accord and satisfaction and guaranty of the debt of another.

(2) Central to the dispute between the parties is the determination of whether the appellee, Kathleen S. Trader, orally agreed to act as a guarantor of the debt her husband owed to the appellants. The Court of Common Pleas, after a bench trial in which conflicting testimony was presented on that issue, determined, as a matter of fact, that appellee made “no guarantee to be responsible for Gary Trader’s debt.” That factual finding was binding in the Superior Court, and on this Court upon further review, unless clearly erroneous or not the product of a logical and deductive process.

Marciano v. Nakash, 535 A.2d 400, 405 (Del. 1987). Given that exacting standard of review, there was no basis for the Superior Court, and presently for this Court to reverse the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. Moreover, in light of the factual findings of the Court of Common Pleas, the legal standards of guaranty and accord and satisfaction find no application. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for this Court to review the rulings of law made by the Superior Court and we specifically decline to do so.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.