Opinion
C.A. No. 06A-07-001 THG.
October 19, 2006
Brenda Hoopes Bethany Beach, DE
Patricia D. Murphy, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice Wilmington, DE
Dear Ms. Hoopes and Ms. Murphy:
This is the Court's decision as to the appeal by Brenda Hoopes of an Order of the Delaware Council of Real Estate Appraisers which suspended her license for a period of two years.
It is unnecessary to review the proceedings below or the determinations made by the Delaware Council of Real Estate Appraisers. This appeal is denied and the decision of the Delaware Council of Real Estate Appraisers is affirmed because Ms. Hoopes does nothing more in her opening brief and her reply brief, other than reargue or rehash the evidence and testimony that was presented to the administrative body below.
Ms. Hoopes spends her time arguing why the Council is wrong factually and/or why her conduct which led to her suspension should be excused. Appeals to this Court are on the record and are not de novo. This Court's role is to determine whether or not substantial evidence supported the decision below and to determine if the Board or the Council committed legal error. Avon Products v. Lamparski, Del. Supr. 293 A.2d 559 (1972). The Court usually examines the record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the findings of fact and the decision made by the Council. Johnson v. Chrysler, Del. Supr. 213 A.2d 64 (1965). The Court does not re-weigh the evidence, nor does the Court substitute its judgment for the factual determinations made by the Board or Council below. Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d at 66.
Ms. Hoopes raises no legal deficiency in the decision below nor does she attack the decision as lacking substantial evidence to support its findings and ultimate decision. Again, Ms. Hoopes disagrees with the decision concerning the suspension of her license and attempts to reargue her position which was unsuccessful before the Council. It is apparent that Ms. Hoopes does not understand the role of this Court in the appellate process.
Procedurally, Ms. Hoopes has failed to make a proper attack as to the decision below which this Court could consider. For these reasons, the decision below is affirmed.