Edward Scot Husbands v. Dwight Alexander Hamilton and Shirley Zebovitz

── Edward Scot Husbands v. Dwight Alexander Hamilton and Shirley Zebovitz ── Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWARD SCOT HUSBANDS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2023-1134-BWD ) DWIGHT ALEXANDER HAMILTON ) and SHIRLEY ZEBOVITZ, ) ) Defendants. ) POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: April 24, 2026 Date Decided: May 29, 2026 Dean A. Campbell, LAW OFFICE OF DEAN A. CAMPBELL, P.A., Milton, DE; Attorneys for Plaintiff Edward Scot Husbands. Angelica M. Mamani, HUDSON, JONES, JAYWORK & FISHER, LLC, Dover, DE; Attorneys for Defendants Dwight Alexander Hamilton and Shirley Zebovitz. DAVID, V.C.  Edward Scot Husbands and Dwight Alexander Hamilton had been friends on and off for more than four decades when Husbands was charged with a crime involving minors, lost his job as an assistant principal, and was required to refinance or sell his home under a divorce settlement. Husbands received an offer from third party buyers to purchase his home for $350,000, conditioned on a home inspection. When the inspection revealed a need for costly repairs that Husbands could not afford, Hamilton, who owned a construction business through which he flipped houses, offered to purchase the home “as an investment property,” rent it back to Husbands while he made the repairs, sell the home in “2-3 years,” and repay Husbands “$200k (or more)” in equity from the proceeds. When the third-party buyers came back with an unconditional offer, Husbands accepted Hamilton’s proposal instead. Hamilton and his wife purchased the home for $130,000, roughly the balance due on Husbands’ mortgage. Hamilton and his wife sold the property three years later for $557,000. Hamilton refused to pay Husbands his portion of the proceeds, however, asserting that the parties never reached a binding agreement requiring the payment and that repairs had cost him more than he expected. This post-trial decision rejects Hamilton’s position, concluding from a series of text messages and the parties’ subsequent conduct that they formed a binding contract under which Husbands is entitled to $200,000 from the sale proceeds. I. BACKGROUND The following facts are as the Court finds them following a two-day trial held on December 22 and 23, 2025.1 A. Husbands Agrees In A Divorce Settlement To Refinance Or Sell The Property. Plaintiff Edward Scot Husbands and defendant Dwight Alexander Hamilton were friends for 45 years.2 They went to school together, attended one another’s first weddings, grew apart, then reconnected at various stages of their friendship.3 In 2015, Husbands worked as a high school assistant principal in Milford, Delaware.4 Hamilton was a licensed realtor and owned a construction business that operated in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. through which he “flipped” residential properties.5 1 The joint Pretrial Stipulation is cited as “PTO ¶ __”. See Dkt. 64. The trial transcript is cited as “Tr. (Witness) at __”. See Dkts. 74–75. Joint exhibits are cited as “JX __” unless otherwise defined. 2 Tr. (Husbands) at 17:18–18:11. 3 Id. at 19:23–20:1, 119:3–20; id. (Hamilton) at 351:18–24. 4 Tr. (Husbands) at 9:10–17. 5 PTO ¶ 2.11; Tr. (Hamilton) at 348:13–349:2, 349:9–18, 368:8–13. Hamilton has since moved to Florida. Id. at 348:18–21. 2  Husbands and Hamilton reconnected during a low point in Husbands’ life.6 In 2016, Husbands lost his job after he was charged with a crime involving minors.7 Husbands and his wife then divorced.8 In 2017, Husbands and his ex-wife exec