IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES DAVID BLACK and, § 

ELISABETH V. BLACK, § 

 § No. 86, 2014 

 Petitioners Below - § 

 Appellants, § 

 § Court Below: 

v. § Superior Court of the State 

 § of Delaware, in and for 

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE § New Castle County 

COURT 13, and PAUL D. TAYLOR, § 

 § 

 Respondents Below - § C.A. N14A-01-006 CEB 

 Appellees. § 

 

Submitted: October 15, 2014 

Decided: November 25, 2014 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, RIDGELY, VALIHURA, Justices,

and RYAN, Judge*, constituting the Court en Banc. 

 Upon appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

 R. Craig Martin, Esquire (argued) and Brian A. Biggs, Esquire, DLA Piper 

LLP (US), Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Petitioners Below - Appellants. 

 Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Paul D. 

Taylor, Respondent Below - Appellee. 

HOLLAND, Justice: 

* Sitting by designation under Del. Const. art. IV, § 12. 
2 

The matter before this Court began on November 21, 2013, when Paul D. 

Taylor (“Taylor”) filed a complaint seeking back rent and possession of a home he 

had rented to James David Black and Elisabeth V. Black (the “Blacks”). Justice of 

the Peace Court 13 ordered an expedited summary possession trial under 25 Del. 

C. § 5115. That statute grants authority to Justice of the Peace Courts to issue a 

“forthwith summons” when “the landlord alleges and by substantial evidence 

demonstrates to the Court that a tenant has caused substantial or irreparable harm 

to landlord’s person or property.”1 

This is an appeal from the Superior Court’s judgment denying the Blacks’ 

petition for a writ of certiorari. The Blacks present two arguments on appeal. 

First, they allege the record shows, and the Blacks pled, that Justice of the Peace 

Court 13 proceeded contrary to law and denied the Blacks due process of law when 

it issued a forthwith summons under 25 Del. C. § 5115 absent satisfaction of the 

statutory requirements for issuance of that summons. Second, the Blacks assert the 

record shows that Justice of the Peace Court 13 proceeded irregularly because it 

created no record regarding the basis for its issuance of the forthwith summons. 

We have concluded that both of the Blacks’ contentions are meritorious. 

Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court must be reversed. 

 

1

25 Del. C. § 5115.
3 

Facts 

Taylor’s complaint was filed in Justice of the Peace Court 13 on November 

21, 2013 at 8:13 a.m., alleging: 

The plaintiff landlord rented this residential unit to 

defendant tenants by lease. Rent is $1600 per month. 

Defendants have not paid rent for August – November

2013. The total due is $6,400 (reduced by $500 for a pet 

deposit). The five day letter dated November 13, 2013 is 

attached and incorporated by reference. The plaintiff 

landlord seeks back rent and possession. 

Taylor’s complaint did not allege any past substantial or irreparable harm caused 

by the Blacks and attached no affidavits or other evidence to that effect. 

Nevertheless, Justice of the Peace Court 13 issued a forthwith summons at 11:49 

a.m. on November 21, 2013 – the same day – and scheduled trial for 1:00 p.m. on 

November 22, 2013 – the very next day. Justice of the Peace Court 13 docketed 

that it granted the forthwith summons, but did not record what standard it applied 

or what evidence it considered. The docket entry merely stated, in relevant part: 

“PER JUDGE ROBERTS: GRANTED. SCHEDULE FORTHWITH.” The 

Blacks had less than 24 hours to prepare for trial because the Constable did not 

return service to them until 3:17 p.m. 

The Blacks objected to the expedited proceedings at the November 22 

hearing, but Justice of the Peace Court 13 overruled this objection and proceeded 

with the eviction trial immediately. At trial, Justice of the Peace Court 13 found 
4 

for Taylor and ordered back rent and re-possession of the Blacks’ home. The 

Blacks appealed that decision to a three-judge panel of Justice of the Peace Court 

13. At the hearing on the appeal, the Blacks objected again to the Justice of the 

Peace 13’s issuance of the forthwith summons. The three-judge panel overruled 

the objection, found in favor of Taylor, and again ordered the Blacks to pay back 

rent and granted re-possession of the Blacks’ home to Taylor.2 

The Blacks filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Delaware Superior 

Court seeking review of Justice of the Peace Court 13’s final judgment. The 

Blacks’ petition alleged that Justice of the Peace Court 13 erred as a matter of law 

when it issued the forthwith summons without the allegations and proof required 

under 25 Del. C. § 5115. The Blacks also alleged that the Justice of the Peace 

Court 13 proceeded irregularly because it created no record of why it issued the 

forthwith summons. The Superior Court dismissed the Blacks’ petition. 

Certiorari Review 

This Court has held that the Superior Court can issue writs of certiorari to a 

Justice of the Peace Court to review summary possession proceedings for errors of 

law.3 Certiorari review in a summary possession action is “on the record and the 

reviewing court may not weigh evidence or review the lower tribunal’s factual 

 

2 Taylor v. Black, Del. J.P., C.A. No. JP-13-13-015262, Lee, J., Page, J., Tull, J. (Jan. 14, 2013); 

A120-122.

3 Maddrey v. Justice of the Peace Court 13, 956 A.2d 1204, 1212 (Del. 2008). 
5 

findings.”4 The only record appropriate for common law certiorari review in a 

summary possession action is “the initial papers, limited to the complaint initiating 

the proceeding, the answer or response (if required) and the docket entries.”5 

Because of its limitations, certiorari review is only appropriate when two 

threshold requirements are met.6 The first threshold requirement is that “the 

judgment must be final and there can be no other available basis for review.”7 

There is no dispute that the January decision by the three-judge panel of Justice of 

the Peace Court 13 is a final, non-appealable judgment.8

 Second, the petition must 

raise the type of claim reviewable on certiorari, namely “whether the lower 

tribunal (1) committed errors of law, (2) exceeded its jurisdiction, or (3) proceeded 

irregularly.”9 “‘A decision will be reversed for an error of law committed by the 

lower tribunal when the record affirmatively shows that the lower tribunal has 

‘proceeded illegally or manifestly contrary to law.’”10 “Reversal on jurisdictional 

grounds is appropriate ‘only if the record fails to show that the matter was within 

the lower tribunal’s personal and subject matter jurisdiction.’”11 “Reversal for 

 

4

Id. at 1213.

5

Id. at 1216. 

6

Id. at 1213-14.

7

Id. at 1213. 

8

 25 Del. C. § 5717; see also Maddrey, 956 A.2d at 1213. 

9 Maddrey, 956 A.2d at 1213; see also 1 Victor B. Woolley, Practice in Civil Actions and 

Proceedings in the Law Courts of the State of Delaware, §§ 896-97 (1906). 

10 Maddrey, 956 A.2d at 1214 (quoting Christiana Town Center, LLC v. New Castle Cnty., 2004 

WL 2921830, at *2 (Del. Dec. 16, 2004)). 

11 Id. (quoting Christiana Town Center, LLC, 2004 WL 2921830, at *2).
6 

irregularities of proceedings occurs ‘if the lower tribunal failed to create an 

adequate record for review.’”12

 

Error of Law 

The Blacks’ petition for a writ of certiorari alleged that the Justice of the 

Peace Court 13 committed an error of law because it issued the forthwith summons 

without complying with the statutory requirements of 25 Del. C. § 5115. Pursuant 

to that statute, a Justice of the Peace Court may issue a “forthwith summons” only 

when “the landlord alleges and by substantial evidence demonstrates to the Court 

that a tenant has caused substantial or irreparable harm to landlord’s person or 

property . . . .”13 The record reflects that Justice of the Peace Court 13 disregarded 

§ 5115 in two key respects. First, Taylor’s complaint did not allege that the Blacks 

had caused “substantial or irreparable harm.” Second, the complaint and the 

docket entries do not reflect that Justice of the Peace Court 13 received any 

authenticated documents, testimony, affidavits or any evidence – let alone 

substantial evidence – that supported a finding of past substantial or irreparable 

harm. There was no dispute on this point. The Superior Court questioned Taylor’s 

counsel on the deficiencies of the complaint and the absence of any substantial 

evidence on the record. Taylor’s counsel conceded there were no allegations in the 

 

12 Id. (quoting Christiana Town Center LLC, 2004 WL 2921830, at *2). 

13 25 Del. C. § 5115 (emphasis added). 
7 

complaint and no affidavit or other evidence submitted in support of the complaint 

that would satisfy § 5115. 

The Blacks’ petition for a writ of certiorari alleged that Justice of the Peace 

Court 13 erred as a matter of law by granting the forthwith summons even though 

Taylor failed to allege and provide evidence meeting the statutory requirements of 

25 Del. C. § 5115. The Blacks’ petition further alleged that this error was clear on 

the face of the record. The Blacks’ petition, thus, satisfied the first basis set forth 

by this Court in Maddrey v. Justice of the Peace Court 13 for the issuance of a writ 

of certiorari, i.e., that “the lower tribunal . . . proceeded illegally or manifestly 

contrary to law” because it did not follow the statutory requirements of § 5115.14 

Accordingly, we hold that the Superior Court erred by dismissing the Blacks’ 

petition and refusing to issue the writ of certiorari, when the petition satisfied the 

first criterion set forth in Maddrey. 

Proceeded Irregularly 

Our holding in Maddrey also establishes that a party aggrieved by a final

judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court for summary possession may petition 

the Superior Court for certiorari review on the grounds that the Justice of the 

 

14 Maddrey, 956 A.2d at 1214.
8 

Peace Court proceeded irregularly.15 The record reflects that the only docket entry 

that addressed the forthwith summons cursorily stated, with no explanation: “PER 

JUDGE ROBERTS: GRANTED. SCHEDULE FORTHWITH.” The docket entry 

fails to demonstrate what evidence was considered, what standard was applied, and 

whether the evidence met that standard. The docket entry following the expedited 

hearing is also deficient, and simply reads, “POSSESSION PLTF MUST PUT 

ALL UTILITIES IN HIS NAME.” These errors are reviewable on certiorari

according to the third criterion set forth in Maddrey: 

As an example of an error properly reviewable on a writ 

of certiorari, the Superior Court can consider 

irregularities shown in the docket entries. . . . Justices 

of the Peace should, in every case insure that the docket 

sheet, in order to create a reviewable record, reflects a 

short statement of the decision . . . that explains who 

prevailed and the burden of proof applied.16

Accordingly, we also hold that Justice of the Peace Court 13 proceeded irregularly 

by insufficiently docketing the basis for its decisions to issue the forthwith 

summons and possession.17 

 

 

15 Id.; see also Woolley at §§ 896-97. “Reversal for irregularities of proceedings occurs ‘if the 

lower tribunal failed to create an adequate record for review.’” Maddrey, 956 A.2d at 1214

(quoting Christiana Town Center LLC, 2004 WL 29211830, at *2).

16 Maddrey, 956 A.2d at 1215 (emphasis added). 

17 See id. at 1214. Of course, the docket itself can refer to a separate document that contains this 

information. In this case, there is nothing of that kind and the sole explanation is provided by the 

docket itself.
9 

Conclusion 

The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed. This matter is remanded for 

further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.