Title: Bet, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjust. of Sussex Cty.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

499 A.2d 811 (1985)
B.E.T., INC., Petitioner-Below, Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF SUSSEX COUNTY, Respondent-Below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.
Submitted: December 4, 1984.
Decided: February 6, 1985.
Melvyn I. Monzack and Francis A. Monaco, Jr., Walsh and Monzack, P.A., Wilmington, for appellant.
James A. Fuqua, Jr., Asst. Co. Atty., Fuqua and Graves, Georgetown, for appellee.
Before HERRMANN, C.J., and HORSEY and CHRISTIE, JJ.
PER CURIAM:
In this zoning case, there was an appeal to the Superior Court by the landowner, B.E.T., Inc., from a decision of the Sussex County Board of Adjustment refusing to grant a variance. After a hearing, the Superior Court rendered its decision by the following letter opinion:
B.E.T., Inc. appeals to this Court.
We remand the cause to the Superior Court with directions to file an order or opinion stating the reasons for its decision. An opinion, in which the Court merely adopts and incorporates by reference the brief of one of the parties, is inadequate and unacceptable.
It is established law in this State that a judge must state the reasons for his decision. Cannon v. Miller, Del.Supr., 412 A.2d 946 (1980); Storey v. Camper, Del. Supr., 401 A.2d 458 (1979); Husband M. v. Wife D., Del.Supr., 399 A.2d 847 (1979); General Motors Corp. v. Cox, Del.Supr., 304 A.2d 55 (1973); Ademski v. Ruth, Del. Supr., 229 A.2d 837 (1967). Failure to give such reasons constitutes an abuse of discretion. Husband M. v. Wife D., supra; Storey v. Camper, supra. While the judge may state his reasons briefly, Ademski v. Ruth, supra, he must do so with particularity sufficient to discharge his "duty to make a record to show what factors [he] considered and the reasons for his decision." Storey v. Camper, supra at 466.
The reasons for the rule were well restated by this Court in Cannon v. Miller, supra:
412 A.2d  at 947.
A judicial "short cut" of this mandate, by the mere incorporation by reference of a party's brief as the Court's opinion, may not be countenanced by this Court.
Accordingly, (1) the judgment below is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith; (2) a report upon the remand shall be filed by the Trial Court as required by Supr.Ct. Rule 19 (c); and (3) the jurisdiction of this Court is reserved.