Opinion
No. 04A-01-002 HDR.
Submitted: March 25, 2004. Received: September 27, 2004.
Decided: September 29, 2004.
Upon an Appeal of a Decision of the Court of Common Pleas. Reversed and Remanded.
Carl S. Pavetto, pro se. Frederick, Maryland
Laura A. Yiengst, Esquire of Liguori Morris Yiengst, Dover, Delaware; attorneys for the Appellees.
ORDER
Carl Pavetto (" Appellant") appeals a decision from the Court of Common Pleas that dismissed his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant contends that the trial judge erred as a matter of law in applying the mirror image rule. In the alternative, assuming arguendo the mirror image rule applies, Appellant contends his appeal satisfies the requirements of such rule. In articulating the proper application of the mirror image rule, this Court is afforded the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in its recent decision of Fossett v. Dalco Construction Co.; a luxury that was not available to the court below. In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision and for the reasons set forth below, this Court finds the trial judge erred as a matter of law in his application of the mirror image rule and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is hereby reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
No. 6072003, 2004 WL 1965141 (Del. 2004).
In March 2003, Appellant filed a complaint in trespass against nine defendants ("Appellees") in the Justice of The Peace Court. Appellees requested a jury trial and also demanded a bill of particulars. Appellant failed to appear on the trial date and his case was dismissed. Subsequently, Appellees filed a motion and was awarded attorney's fees by the magistrate in the amount of $1000 for "unnecessary costs imposed on the Defendants after the Plaintiff stopped prosecuting his action in good faith." Appellant filed an appeal with the Court of Common Pleas contesting the award of attorney's fees; however, Appellant did not appeal the Court's order dismissing his cause of action in trespass. The court below held an appeal on the magistrate's award of attorney's fees is not identical to the original cause of action for trespass. Accordingly, the court concluded the appeal was in violation of the mirror image rule and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This appeal followed.
The McDowell Rule, commonly referred to as the Mirror Image Rule, came into existence over a century ago in 1857. The Mirror Image Rule prevents a court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal de novo unless the following are identical from the court below: 1) the names of the parties, 2) the number of the parties, 3) the character or right in which the parties are sued, and 4) the cause and form of the action. Although the rule was never codified, there are many legitimate reasons courts continue to recognize and uphold the mirror image rule. As recently expressed by the Supreme Court,
McDowell v. Simpson, 1 Houst. 467 (Del.Super. 1857).
Panzer Management Co. v. Farrall, 1987 WL 8223 (Del.Super. 1987).
The rule provides for an adequate and fair hearing of the entire matter de novo by affording all parties to the Justice of the Peace proceeding an opportunity to argue their version of the facts, to present their view of the law's application to those facts, and to assure the de novo reviewing court that all relevant issues that could be presented can be heard. The rule also spares a judge hearing an appeal de novo from having to consider assertions about facts and law attributable to a party below who or which was not made a party to the de novo appeal. Lastly, the mirror image rule arguably avoids difficulties that might arise in joining unnamed parties after the expiration of the fifteen-day jurisdictional limit for an appeal from Justice of the Peace Court.
Fossett, 2004 WL 1965141 at *1.
However, the Supreme Court also noted the potential injustice that could occur to a party who was unaware of this rule. Although the Court did not decide the continual validity of the rule, the Supreme Court instructed the Court of Common Pleas to "determine as promptly as practicable whether the mirror image rule has continued efficacy; and, if so, to adopt formally a civil rule that is sufficiently clear to put all parties taking an appeal from the Justice of the Peace Courts on notice that failure to comply with a codified mirror image rule will result in a jurisdictional defect and in dismissal of the appeal."
Id. at *2.
Today, this Court must decide whether noncompliance with the mirror image rule automatically strips the Court of Common Pleas of subject matter jurisdiction. This Court finds that it does not. Absent good reason, such as actual or potential prejudice as a result of noncompliance, the rule should not be applied to preclude a court from possessing subject matter jurisdiction. In exercising their discretion, judges must inquire into the particular facts of each case in determining whether a dismissal based on the mirror image rule is warranted.
Appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Common Pleas contesting the award of attorney's fees but did not take an appeal from the lower court's order dismissing his cause of action in trespass. Although the appeal is defective because it violates the mirror image rule, the appeal should not be dismissed absent good reason. Here, all of the defendants from the proceedings below were named in the appeal and the issue presented on appeal did not require the court to make any factual determinations. Thus, there does not appear to be any actual or potential prejudice from Appellant's noncompliance. Accordingly, the trial judge erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based exclusively on the violation of the mirror image rule without first considering what effect, if any, such noncompliance would have.
Although this Court recognizes its decision is contrary to other Superior Court decisions that have strictly interpreted and applied the mirror image rule, most, if not all, of those cases involved the absence of parties on appeal thus creating potential prejudice for third-parties. Here, a dismissal is unwarranted because there is no potential prejudice to third-parties. Further, this Court finds that such a rule unconditionally wielded directly contravenes Delaware's modern day easy pleadings practice. Accordingly, absent good reason, a violation of the mirror image rule shall not deprive the Court of Common Pleas of subject matter jurisdiction on appeals de novo.
See Freibott v. Patterson Schwartz, Inc., 740 A. 2d 4, 6 (Del.Super. 1999).
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas is hereby reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.