COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
BONNIE W. DAVID COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
August 17, 2026
Kun Jiang Kenneth M. Doss, Esquire 17 Cornwallis Square Namra Sandhu, Esquire
Newark, DE 19713 Casarino Christman Shalk Ransom &
Doss P.A.
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1450
Wilmington, DE 19899
Robert J. Valihura, Jr., Esquire
Caren Sydnor, Esquire
Morton, Valihura & Zerbato, LLC
3704 Kennett Pike, Suite 200
Greenville, DE 19807
Melissa L. Rhoads, Esquire
Tighe & Cottrell, P.A.
5305 Limestone Road, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19808
RE: Kun Jiang v. Haslet Homeowners Association,
C.A. No. 2023-0780-LM (BWD)
Dear Counsel and Litigants:
As you know, on July 24, 2026, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion
Resolving Exceptions (the “Opinion”) in the above-referenced matter.
Memorandum Opinion Resolving Exceptions [hereinafter Opinion], Dkt. 287. The
Opinion deferred ruling on (1) the reasonableness of the fines imposed on Plaintiff,
and (2) whether this is an “appropriate case” to shift attorneys’ fees under 25 Del. Kun Jiang v. Haslet Homeowners Association,
C.A. No. 2023-0780-LM (BWD)
August 17, 2026
Page 2 of 4
C. § 81-417(a). The Opinion directed the Association to supplement the record on
these issues by submitting affidavits detailing all fines imposed on Plaintiff after
June 27, 2023, and the Association’s court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Opinion at 28. As directed, on August 7, 2026, counsel for the Association filed
affidavits identifying fines in the amount of either $34,140.00 or $33,810.00, and
seeking an award of $95,944.57 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. See Dkts.
288–89.
Fines. As the Opinion explained, Section 81-302(a)(11) of the DUCIOA
authorizes an association, “after notice and an opportunity to be heard, [to] levy
reasonable fines for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the
association.” 25 Del. C. § 81-302(a)(11). The Council provided Plaintiff with
written notice of his violation on February 24, 2023, warning Plaintiff that fines
would begin to accrue on March 11. JX 17; JX 18. The Council gave Plaintiff an
opportunity to be heard on June 27, during a Zoom meeting at which he spoke for
40 minutes. JX 32; Tr. (Hale) at 407:15–16. “[R]easonable fines” levied after that
date are therefore authorized under the DUCIOA. Having reviewed counsel’s
affidavits, I conclude that fines levied as of August 7, 2026, in the amount of
$33,810.00 are reasonable under the circumstances. Aff. of Fines ¶ 7, Dkt. 289.
Plaintiff was given ample notice of the daily fine and an opportunity to correct his Kun Jiang v. Haslet Homeowners Association,
C.A. No. 2023-0780-LM (BWD)
August 17, 2026
Page 3 of 4
violation but refused to do so. When I consider the reasonableness of the daily fine
($20 per day for the first 30 days, and $30 per day thereafter), as well as the
significant cost Plaintiff’s noncompliance has imposed on the Community, I am
convinced that the fine (which shall continue to accrue at $30 per day until the
violation is remedied, absent further order of the Court) is reasonable.
Attorneys’ Fees. As the Opinion also explained, Section 81-417(a) of the
DUCIOA provides that “[t]he court, in an appropriate case, may award court costs
and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” 25 Del. C. § 81-417(a). This section “grants broad
discretion to the trial court to determin[e] what constitutes ‘an appropriate case.’”
Bragdon v. Bayshore Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 251 A.3d 661, 685 (Del. Ch. 2021).
This Court has explained that “[a] case may be appropriate for fee-shifting where a
party has ‘acted unreasonably’ or in an ‘arbitrary and capricious’ manner or has
‘engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct.’” Smernoff, Tr. Under Gerald N.
Smernoff Revocable Tr. Dated May 24, 2000 v. King’s Grant Condo. Ass’n, Inc.,
2024 WL 3384826, at *9 (Del. Ch. July 12, 2024), judgment entered sub nom.
Smernoff v. The King’s Grant Condo. Ass’n, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2024), R. & R. adopted,
(Del. Ch. 2025).
“Although ‘Section 81-417 contemplates a lower standard for expense
shifting than the bad-faith exception to the American Rule[,]’ fee-shifting under Kun Jiang v. Haslet Homeowners Association,
C.A. No. 2023-0780-LM (BWD)
August 17, 2026
Page 4 of 4
Section 81-417(a) is permissive and the Court retains broad discretion to determine
whether to shift fees.” Id. (quoting Bragdon, 251 A.3d at 667). I decline to exercise
my discretion to shift fees here. Although the Association prevailed on most (though
not all) of the issues in this litigation, the Magistrate Judge nonetheless found merit
in several of Plaintiff’s positions. This suggests Plaintiff’s arguments were not
frivolous or brought in bad faith. Further, given the sizeable fine already imposed
on Plaintiff for his violation, I believe a further award of attorneys’ fees would be
unjust. The Association’s request for fee-shifting is therefore denied.
Sincerely,
/s/ Bonnie W. David
Bonnie W. David
Vice Chancellor