IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 

SHERRY LONG, ) 

 ) 

Defendant-Below/Appellant, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) C.A. No. CPU4-16-000917 

 ) 

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Below/Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Submitted: October 21, 2016 

Decided: December 13, 2016 

Sherry Long Victoria Counihan, Esq. 

321 Wooddale Avenue Department of Justice 

New Castle, DE 19720 820 North French Street 

Self-Represented Appellant Wilmington, DE 19801 

 Attorney for Appellee 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from a decision by the Justice of the Peace Court No. 13 

finding in favor of Plaintiff-Below/Appellee State of Delaware Benefit Payment 

Control Unit (the “Division”1

), of the Department of Labor’s Division of 

Unemployment Insurance. The Division brings this Motion for Summary Judgment 

(the “Motion”) pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 56. A hearing on the 

 

1

 The Division is the agency responsible for maintaining the solvency of Delaware’s Unemployment Compensation 

Administration Fund, which provides wage earners who become unemployed through no fault of their own with 

unemployment benefits until they re-enter the labor market. 
2

Motion was held on September 2, 2016. During the hearing, the question surfaced of 

whether the Court has jurisdiction in this matter. Specifically, the Court questioned 

whether it could issue an order for the collection of a debt based upon a decision by 

the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. At the conclusion of the hearing, the 

Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of jurisdiction. 

The Division complied with the Court’s briefing order; however, Sherry Long 

(“Defendant”) failed to submit any additional material. This is the Court’s decision 

on the Motion. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 Defendant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with the 

Division, effective February 5, 2012, and began receiving benefits in the amount of 

$281.00 per week. After receiving these benefits for six months, Defendant applied 

for an extension, which became effective on August 5, 2012, and again began 

receiving benefits in the amount of $281.00 per week. Defendant continued to 

receive the extension weekly benefits from August 11, 2012 through December 29, 

2012. 

On January 23, 2013, the Division issued a Notice of Determination finding 

that Defendant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance 

benefits as of April 21, 2012 (the “Disqualification Determination”). The notice 

stated that an overpayment would be established, and Defendant had a right to appeal 
3

the Disqualification Determination. Defendant did not pursue an appeal, and the 

Disqualification Determination became final on February 2, 2013. 

On March 1, 2013, the Division issued two notices determining Defendant had 

been overpaid unemployment insurance benefits for which she was later found to be 

disqualified (the “Overpayment Determinations”). The Overpayment Determinations 

found that Defendant had been overpaid unemployment benefits in the amount of 

$4,496.00 from April 21, 2012 to August 4, 2012; and $5,620.00 from August 11, 2012 

to December 29, 2012. Defendant appealed both Overpayment Determinations to an 

Appeals Referee. After a hearing on the merits, the Appeals Referee upheld both of 

the Overpayment Determinations. 

On April 15, 2013, Defendant appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision to the 

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the “Board”). The Board affirmed the 

Appeals Referee’s decision, and found Defendant liable for the overpayments of 

unemployment benefits. On May 8, 2013, Defendant appealed the Board’s decision 

to the Superior Court; however, the Superior Court dismissed the action on October 

3, 2013 because Defendant failed to prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, the Board’s 

decision upholding the Overpayment Determinations became a final administrative 

order. 

Pursuant to the authority in 19 Del. C. § 3325 and 30 Del. C. § 545, the Division 

began collection proceedings of the amounts owed by withholding a portion of 

Defendant’s future unemployment benefits and by intercepting Defendant’s tax 
4

refunds. The Division was able to recoup $1,367.00 from Defendant using these 

methods. Defendant currently owes the Division $8,875.50 in unemployment 

benefits overpayments.

 On October 22, 2015, the Division brought a debt action against Defendant 

in Justice of the Peace Court No. 13, to recover the amounts due from overpayments. 

On March 8, 2016, Defendant filed a counterclaim in the amount of $1,368.00, 

seeking recovery of reductions in unemployment benefit payments the Division 

withheld. The Justice of the Peace Court held a trial on March 9, 2016, and entered 

judgment in favor of the Division in the amount of $8,829.00 plus costs. On March 

24, 2016, Defendant filed an appeal to this Court. 

 The Division filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on August 9, 

2016. The Court conducted a hearing on the Motion on September 2, 2016, where 

the jurisdiction issue surfaced. The question centered upon the Court’s authority to 

hear an action where the claim arose out of and is based upon an administrative 

decision by the Board to collect overpayment benefits. The Court allowed the parties 

to submit supplemental briefs on the issue of jurisdiction, and reserved decision on 

the Motion. On September 30, 2016, the Division filed its Opening Brief on the issue 

of jurisdiction. Although Defendant was afforded the opportunity to address the 

issue of jurisdiction, Defendant did not file a Response. 

 
5

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS 

 The Division contends that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this debt action 

and issue a judgment based upon a decision by the Board. In support of its position, 

the Division argues the Court has jurisdiction under the plain meaning of the 

unambiguous statute codified in 19 Del. C. § 3325. The Division argues that under 

section 3325, the Division may collect an overpayment of unemployment benefits by 

bringing a “civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The Division contends 

that based upon principles of statutory construction and case law construing sections 

of the Delaware Code, the Court has jurisdiction to hear this action to collect a debt 

overpayment owed to a state agency. 

 Moreover, the Division references other sections of Title 19 which require 

appeals to be filed exclusively with the Superior Court. The Division argues the 

General Assembly never intended Section 3325 actions for the collection of 

overpayment debts to be filed exclusively in the Superior Court, but instead in any 

“court of competent jurisdiction.” The Division maintains if the legislature meant for 

these cases to be heard exclusively in Superior Court, it would have so specified in the 

statute. The Division maintains the plain language of the statute is evidence of the 

legislature’s intent to allow the Division to file actions, such as this one, in any court 

that hears civil actions, subject to the limitations of amounts in controversy. 

 Furthermore, the Division contends that the Delaware Administrative Procedures 

Act (the “APA”) does not apply in this case, because the APA does not apply to 
6

decisions of either the Division or the Board. The Division acknowledges that 

appeals from case decisions made by State agencies and boards must be filed with the 

Superior Court pursuant to the APA. However, the Division contends the instant 

action is not an appeal of an agency decision, but rather a separate action to collect 

debts owed as a result of a final, and no longer appealable, agency decision. 

Therefore, the State reasons that since the APA does not confer jurisdiction in debt 

matters, the Court must look to the Delaware Code and the Delaware Constitution to 

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. 

 With respect to this Court, the Division notes that the Delaware Constitution 

grants the Court of Common Pleas jurisdiction over all civil actions at law where the 

matter or thing in controversy does not exceed $50,000. The Division argues that the 

instant matter, which is a civil action at law seeking to collect a debt owed to a state 

agency in an amount less than $50,000, falls squarely within this Court’s jurisdiction. 

Furthermore, the Division maintains that the Justice of the Peace Court had 

jurisdiction to hear this matter, because the amount in controversy did not exceed the 

court’s $15,000 jurisdictional limit. For these reasons, it is the Division’s position that 

not only does the Superior Court have jurisdiction to hear this matter, but also the 

Justice of the Peace Court and the Court of Common Pleas, because they are all 

courts of competent jurisdiction with an amount in controversy not in excess of their 

constitutional limits. 
7

 Because this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Division argues this 

Court must grant its Motion for Summary Judgment. The Division maintains that 

there are no issues of genuine material facts. The Division asserts that the Board’s 

ruling affirming the Overpayment Determinations is a final administrative order, 

which is not reviewable by this Court. The Division argues Defendant’s sole remedy 

to challenge the Board’s decision was to pursue an appeal with the Superior Court, 

which process Defendant began, but did not continue to pursue. This led to the 

Superior Court dismissing Defendant’s appeal, and the Board’s decision became a 

final order. As a result, the Division argues that Defendant is required by law to repay 

the outstanding principal balance owed to the Division with interest and court costs. 

 Although Defendant did not provide this Court with a response on the issue of 

jurisdiction, Defendant does vehemently oppose the Division’s Motion. However, 

Defendant’s opposition is based upon her not being afforded the opportunity to 

argue her case before the Justice of the Peace Court. Specifically, Defendant claims 

she was not able to argue the issue of disqualification of benefits pursuant to 19 Del. 

C. § 3314(1). For these reasons, Defendant implores this Court to deny the Division’s 

Motion, and allow her a chance to present her position at trial. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 56(c) provides that “[t]he judgment shall be 

rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine 
8

issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.”2 If the record reveals that material facts are in dispute, or if the factual record 

has not been developed thoroughly enough to allow the Court to apply the law to the 

factual record sub judice, then summary judgment must be denied. 3

“In considering a motion for summary judgment the court must view the facts 

in a light favorable to the non-moving party and accept, as true, all undisputed factual 

assertions.”4 This Court will grant a motion for summary judgment when there is no 

genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law.5 However, a motion for summary judgment will be denied when “a more 

thorough inquiry into the facts is desirable to clarify the application of the law to the 

circumstances.”6

DISCUSSION 

I. Jurisdiction

Before the Court can address the Division’s Motion, it first must decide the 

threshold question of jurisdiction. As a preliminary matter, I agree with the Division 

that the APA does not apply in this case. The instant matter before the Court is not a 

review of an agency decision, but rather a debt collection action. For this reason, the 

Court must look to the Delaware Code for guidance. 

 

2

 CCP Civ. R. 56(c). 

3 See Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467 (Del. 1962). 

4 Donnelly v. Fannie Mae, 2015 WL 6739163, at *2 (Del. Com. Pl. Nov. 3, 2015) (internal citations omitted). 

5 See Id. 

6

Id. 
9

The recoupment of overpayment of benefits is governed by 19 Del. C. § 3325. 

The statute is explicit on how the Division may recoup the overpayment of 

unemployment benefits, including the requirement that the Division issue notices of 

overpayment prior to any collection action. The statute is also clear that the judicial 

appeal process to dispute a decision of overpayment, is exclusively vested in the 

Superior Court. However, the statute generally vests jurisdiction for collection action 

following the Board’s final determination. 

A pertinent part of Section 3325 states: 

No action shall be taken by the Department to collect an overpayment 

of benefits to any person after a period of 5 years from the end of the 

benefit year, as defined in § 3302(3) of this title, with respect to which 

such benefits were paid, unless during this 5 year period, the Department 

has brought a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the claimant.

7

Furthermore, the first paragraph of Section 3325 states: 

In addition to the methods of collection authorized by this chapter, the 

Department may collect overpayments, interest, penalties, and other 

liabilities due under this chapter as provided in § 545, Title 30 of the 

Delaware Code, § 5402 of the Federal Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 

§ 5402), § 503(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 503(m)), and any 

other means available under Federal or State law.

8

Delaware law grants this Court jurisdiction over all civil actions at law where 

the matter or thing in controversy does not exceed $50,000.9 A debt action based 

upon amounts a party claims or a certain sum of money due to him or her comes 

 

7

 19 Del. C. § 3325 (emphasis added). 

8

Id (emphasis added). 

9

 10 Del. C. § 1322. 
10

within this jurisdiction.10 One of the most common instances of its use is for debts 

based upon judgments or obligations of record.11

 The basic rule of statutory construction requires the Court to ascertain and 

give effect to the intent of the legislature.12 “If the statute as a whole is unambiguous 

and there is no reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the words used, the court's role 

is limited to an application of the literal meaning of those words.”13 The plain reading 

of Section 3325 allows the Division to collect overpayments by any means available 

under State law. This includes bringing debt collection actions based upon judgments 

or obligations of record. The Division brought a debt action against Defendant in the 

Justice of the Peace Court to recover the overpayment of benefits based upon a final 

administrative order. The amount the Division sought to recover was under $15,000. 

Therefore, the Justice of the Peace Court had jurisdiction over this matter. This 

Court has jurisdiction to hear civil appeals from the Justice of the Peace Court, and 

therefore this matter is properly before the Court. 

II. Motion for Summary Judgment 

Turning to the Motion before the Court, having resolved the jurisdiction issue, 

the record reflects that the Board’s decision regarding the overpayment of benefits 

became a final order upon dismissal by the Superior Court. Pursuant to Section 3325, 

 

10 Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading § 52, at 132 (Henry Winthrop Ballantine ed., 3d. 1923). 

11 Id. 

12 See Coastal Barge Corp. v. Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., Del.Supr., 492 A.2d 1242, 1246 (1985). 

13 In re Adoption of Swanson, 623 A.2d 1095, 1096–97 (Del. 1993). 
11

Defendant’s sole remedy to dispute the Board’s decision is an appeal to the Superior 

Court,14 which she commenced but ultimately failed to pursue. This resulted in the 

Superior Court dismissing her appeal, making the Board’s decision final. There are no 

genuine issues of material fact that are in dispute regarding the state’s right to collect 

the debt. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate under Court of Common Pleas 

Civil Rule 56, and the Division’s Motion is GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated supra, the Division’s Motion for Summary Judgment is 

hereby GRANTED. Defendant’s counterclaim seeking the recovery of reductions in 

unemployment benefit payments the Division withheld is hereby DENIED. 

Judgment is entered in favor of the Division in the principal amount of $8,829.00, 

with post-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 18% and costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________ 

 Alex J. Smalls, 

 Chief Judge 

Sherry Long-OP Dec 13 2016 

 

14 19 Del. C. §3325.