Title: Matter of Burns

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
                                
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF THOMAS J. 
BURNS FOR A WRIT OF 
PROHIBITION
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 129, 2004 
 
    
                      
 
Submitted: April 16, 2004  
   Decided: June 3, 2004   
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 3rd day of June 2004, upon consideration of the petition of Thomas J. 
Burns for a writ of prohibition, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Petitioner Thomas J. Burns seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent a 
particular judge of the Family Court from presiding over any matter involving 
Burns and his former spouse.  In support of his petition, Burns claims that the 
Family Court judge: a) failed to review the merits of his petition for review of a 
Family Court commissioner’s order as was ordered by this Court;1 b) failed to 
notify him that his signature on a stipulation and order of the Family Court was 
forged; c) exceeded the jurisdiction of the Family Court by ordering that a 
Pennsylvania grower’s license be transferred from him to his former spouse; and d) 
                                                 
1 By Order dated October 6, 2003, this Court reversed the Family Court’s dismissal of 
Burns’ petition for review of the commissioner’s order on procedural grounds and remanded the 
matter to the Family Court for review of the merits of Burns’ claims.  Burns v. Lamb, Del. Supr., 
No. 270, 2003, Steele, J. (Oct. 6, 2003). 
 
 
-2-
failed to disqualify himself from ruling on the status of a business in dispute 
between the parties in which he has a financial interest.  
 
(2) 
 A writ of prohibition is the legal equivalent of the equitable remedy 
of injunction and may be issued to prevent a lower court from proceeding in a 
matter where it has no jurisdiction, or to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction 
in a matter that is properly before it.2  The jurisdictional defect must be manifest 
upon the record.3  The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate to this Court, by 
clear and convincing evidence, that the trial court is without jurisdiction in the 
matter or is attempting to exceed its jurisdiction.4  A petition for a writ of 
prohibition will be denied if the petitioner has an adequate remedy at law through 
the ordinary appeal process.5   
 
(3) 
In his petition, Burns has failed to demonstrate by clear and 
convincing evidence that the Family Court judge improperly exceeded his 
jurisdiction in the case involving Burns and his former spouse.  Our review of the 
record in this matter reveals no factual basis for any jurisdictional defect, 
including, in particular, Burns’ allegation of a personal interest on the part of the 
                                                 
2 In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
4 Id. at 629. 
5 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965). 
 
 
-3-
Family Court judge in the outcome of the proceeding.6  The Family Court judge 
clearly followed this Court’s directive, as reflected in the October 6, 2003 Order, to 
consider the merits of Burns’ appeal.  Moreover, Burns has an adequate remedy 
through the appeal process and, in fact, his appeal of his claims is currently 
pending in this Court.7   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
prohibition is DENIED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice           
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 Id. at 884. 
7 Burns v. Lamb, Del. Supr., No. 573, 2003.