Opinion
C. A. N23A-08-003 JRJ
01-03-2024
ALLEN SNIPE AND MARIA SNIPE, Appellant, v. BOULDEN SERVICES, LLC, Appellee.
Allen Snipe and Maria Snipe, pro se Victoria K. Petrone, Esq.
Date Submitted: November 16, 2023
Allen Snipe and Maria Snipe, pro se
Victoria K. Petrone, Esq.
ORDER
Jan R. Jurden, President Judge
This 3rd day of January, upon appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, the parties' briefs, and the record below, IT APPEARS THAT:
(1) Appellants, Allen and Maria Snipe ("Appellants") appeal a decision from the Court of Common Pleas. This appeal stems from a routine service inspection of Appellants' home furnace conducted by Appellee, Boulden Services, LLC ("Appellee") on February 24, 2020. During the inspection, Appellee cut several holes in the cabinet of the furnace and proceeded to patch the holes with sheet metal and tape. Dissatisfied with this fix and unable to persuade Appellee to replace the furnace, Appellants purchased a new furnace.
Appellants' Notice of Appeal, Trans. ID 70624187 (Aug. 14, 2023).
Appellants' Notice of Appeal Ex. 1 (hereinafter "Ct. Com. Pl. Decision").
Ct. Com. Pl. Decision at 2.
Id.
(2) On July 27, 2020, Appellants filed a trespass action against Appellee in the Justice of the Peace Court to recover the cost of the new furnace. The Justice of the Peace Court found Appellee negligent and awarded Appellants $4,311.50 to reflect "one-half of [the] new furnace cost."
Appellants' Resp. Ex. 5, Trans. ID 71419654 (Nov. 16, 2023) (hereinafter "J.P. Award").
Id. The court also awarded $40 in court costs and post-judgment interest at the rate of 5.25% per annum. Id.
(3) Appellee filed an appeal with the Court of Common Pleas, which held a de novo bench trial on April 28, 2023. On June 28, 2023, the Court of Common Pleas released its decision after trial reducing Appellants' award to $2,150.
Ct. Com. Pl. Decision.
Id. at 6. This new award reflects a 50% depreciation rate of the cost to replace the old furnace with a more similar model. Id.
(4) On August 14, 2023, Appellants filed the instant Appeal. On October 6, 2023, Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss Appellants' Appeal, alleging it was untimely. Appellants filed their Response on November 16, 2023.
Appellants' Notice of Appeal. Appellants' grounds for appeal are as follows: due to "time restraints" during the trial, they were: (1) "unable to put on discovery" (2) "unable to question defendants about discovery" (3) unable to ask "expert witnesses about [] discovery" and (4) unable to put on their "best defense." Id.
Appellee's Mot. to Dismiss Appellants' Appeal, Trans. ID 71036222 (Oct. 6, 2023). Appellee further alleges that the Appeal failed to identify any legal errors. Id.
Appellants' Resp.
(5) Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1326 a party has "the right of appeal to the Superior Court" from a Court of Common Pleas ruling and it "shall be taken within 30 days of the final order, ruling, decision or judgment."
10 Del. C. § 1326(b). See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 72(b) ("When an appeal is permitted by law, a party may appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the Prothonotary of the appropriate county within the time prescribed by statute.").
(6) The Court of Common Pleas issued its decision following trial on June 28, 2023. Appellants' Appeal was docketed on August 14, 2023, 17 days past the 30-day window to appeal.
Ct. Com. Pl. Decision.
Appellants' Notice of Appeal.
Appellants had until July 28, 2023, to file their Appeal with the Superior Court.
(7) Appellants assert they filed the Appeal to the best of their knowledge and within a timely fashion, but an untimely appeal divests the Court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and jurisdictional defects cannot be waived, even for pro se litigants.
Appellant's Resp. at 4.
See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 72(i) ("The Court may order an appeal dismissed . . . for untimely filing of an appeal . . ."); Malawi v. PHI Serv. Co., 2012 WL 6945506, at *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 12, 2012) ("[the] Court lacks jurisdiction to decide a direct appeal that is untimely and jurisdictional defects cannot be waived.").
See Keuhn v. Cotter, 2015 WL 9312103, at *3 (Del. Super. Dec. 17, 2015) ("If one does not take his appeal within 30 days, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal; so, the appeal must be dismissed.").
See Wyatte v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 2016 WL 552882, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 9, 2016) ("[C]ourts and administrative agencies are at liberty to reasonably interpret a pro se litigant's filings, pleadings and appeals . . . however, barring extraordinary circumstances, procedural requirements are not relaxed for any type of litigant. Because the timely filing of an appeal is a procedural matter . . . a claimant must abide by the deadline set.") (internal quotation marks omitted); Griffin v. Ramirez, 2021 WL 5577261, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 30, 2021) (holding that while pro se pleadings are generally construed liberally, there is no different set of rules for pro se litigants, and the court will not rewrite the law to accommodate a pro se party).
(8) Because the Appeal is untimely, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Appeal and it must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appellants' Appeal is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.