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 o f Delaware. REVERSED AND REMANDED

. R. Craig Martin, Esquire (argued) and Brian A. Biggs, Esquire, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Petit ioners Below - Appellants.

Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esquire, Wilmington, Delawar e, 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 re nt and possession of a home he had rented to James David Black and Elisabeth V. Bl ack (the “Blacks”). Justice of the Peace Court 13 ordered an expedited summary pos session trial under 25 Del.
C. § 5115. That statute grants authority to Justice o f 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 judgmen t 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 B lacks 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 pro ceeded irregularly because it created no record regarding the basis for its issua nce of the forthwith summons. We have concluded that both of the Blacks’ contenti ons 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 Peac e 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 mont h. 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, 2 013 is attached and incorporated by reference. The plaint iff landlord seeks back rent and possession. Taylor’s complaint did not allege any past substant ial or irreparable harm caused by the Blacks and attached no affidavits or other e vidence 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 sche duled 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 m erely 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 overrule d this objection and proceeded with the eviction trial immediately. At trial, Jus tice of the Peace Court 13 found4

for Taylor and ordered back rent and re-possession of the Blacks’ home. The Blacks appealed that decision to a three-judge pane l of Justice of the Peace Court 13. At the hearing on the appeal, the Blacks objec ted 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 al legations 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 n o record of why it issued the forthwith summons. The Superior Court dismissed th e Blacks’ petition. Certiorari Review This Court has held that the Superior Court can iss ue writs of certiorari to a Justice of the Peace Court to review summary posses sion proceedings for errors of law. 3 Certiorari review in a summary possession action is “on the r ecord and the reviewing court may not weigh evidence or review th e lower tribunal’s factual

2 Taylor v. Black , Del. J.P., C.A. No. JP-13-13-015262, Lee, J., Pag e, 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, l imited 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 av ailable basis for review.” 7 There is no dispute that the January decision by th e three-judge panel of Justice of the Peace Court 13 is a final, non-appealable judgm ent. 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 ju risdiction.’” 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 Delaw are , §§ 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 o f 25 Del. C. § 5115. Pursuant to that statute, a Justice of the Peace Court may i ssue a “forthwith summons” only when “the landlord alleges and by substantial evide nce 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 Cou rt 13 disregarded § 5115 in two key respects. First, Taylor’s compla int did not allege that the Blacks had caused “substantial or irreparable harm.” Seco nd, the complaint and the
docket entries do not reflect that Justice of the P eace Court 13 received any authenticated documents, testimony, affidavits or a ny evidence – let alone substantial evidence – that supported a finding of past substantial or irreparable harm. There was no dispute on this point. The Sup erior Court questioned Taylor’s counsel on the deficiencies of the complaint and th e 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 submit ted 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 f orthwith summons even though Taylor failed to allege and provide evidence meetin g 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 illegall y or manifestly contrary to law” because it did not follow the stat utory 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 summ ary 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 stat ed, 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, “POSSE SSION PLTF MUST PUT ALL UTILITIES IN HIS NAME.” These errors are revie wable 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, refl ects 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 decis ions to issue the forthwith summons and possession. 17

15 Id. ; see also Woolley at §§ 896-97. “Reversal for irregularitie s 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 tha t kind and the sole explanation is provided by the docket itself.9 Conclusion The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed. Th is matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion

.