Opinion
C.A. No. 06A-12-005 SCD.
Submitted: December 15, 2006.
Decided: January 12, 2007.
ORDER
This 12th day of January, 2007, upon consideration of the plaintiff's complaint for writ of certiorari, it appears that:
1. Petitioner is a corporation of the State of Delaware located at 42 Winterhaven Drive, Newark, Delaware 19702.
2. Respondent John Gillespie is an individual residing at 3702 Winterhaven Drive, Newark, Delaware 19702.
3. On January 6, 2006, petitioner filed an action against respondent John Gillespie in Justice of the Peace Court No. 12 seeking summary possession of the rental property known as 3702 Winterhaven Drive. Respondent John Gillespie made a timely request for a jury trial.
4. On February 9, 2006, the judge dismissed the case at the pre-trial hearing, finding that the petitioner had committed a retaliatory act as defined by 25 Del. C. § 5516.
5. On February 21, 2006, petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Common Pleas.
6. On May 1, 2006, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the appeal and remanded the case back to Justice of the Peace Court for an appeal de novo before a three judge panel.
7. On June 7, 2006, respondent John Gillespie renewed his request for a jury trial. The three judge panel ordered that the matter be set for trial by jury.
9. On October 4, 2006, respondent waived his right to trial by jury and agreed to a bench trial. Upon conclusion of the trial, the judge ruled for respondent John Gillespie in the amount of $2,340.00 plus post judgment interest at 11.25%.
10. On October 13, 2006, petitioner filed an appeal; a trial de novo was scheduled for November 3, 2006 before a three judge panel.
11. On December 1, 2006, the three judge panel of Justice of the Peace Court No.
13, by a unanimous vote, issued an Order awarding judgment in favor of respondent John Gillespie for possession and three months rent in the amount of $2,340.00 plus post judgment interest at 11.25%.
12. An adverse judgment in an action for possession before a Justice of the Peace Court does not give rise to a right to appeal except to "a special court comprised of 3 justices of the peace other than the justice of the peace who presided at the trial, as appointed by the chief magistrate or a designee, which shall render final judgment, by majority vote, on the original complaint within 15 days after such request for a trial de novo."
13. On December 15, 2006, petitioner filed a writ of certiorari in this Court.
14. A writ of certiorari is used to challenge a final order or interlocutory ruling of a lower court or tribunal if the right to appeal or other adequate remedy is unavailable, a question of grave public policy and interest is involved, and no other basis for review is available. Its function is to permit "review for `a party who considers himself aggrieved by the determination of his rights by the inferior court, without or in excess of its jurisdiction or without compliance with the requirements of law . . .'" On a writ of certiorari, this Court is to consider only: "(i) the lower tribunal's jurisdiction; (ii) the regularity of the proceedings below; and (iii) errors of law."
In re Butler, Del. Supr., 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del. 1992).
Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 437 (Del. 1977).
Reise v. Board of Building Appeals of City of Newark, 746 A.2d 271, 272 (Del. 2000).
15. The legislature has given the Court of Common Pleas "all the powers of a court of record
possessed by the Superior Court of the State in the endorsement of its writs, rules, processes, the
attendance of witnesses, the requiring of security for costs from nonresident plaintiffs, the
production of documents, books and records and the production of all other necessary evidence."
16. Petitioner's complaint for writ of certiorari was improperly filed in this Court, it should
have been filed in the Court of Common Pleas.
WHEREFORE, petitioner's complaint for writ of certiorari is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.