Title: Petition of Miller
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 16, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
IN 
RE 
THE 
PETITION 
OF 
LAURENCE 
AND 
NANCY 
MILLER 
FOR 
A 
WRIT 
OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 16, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 24, 2006 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    February 28, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of February 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioners, Laurence and Nancy Miller, seek to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to 
compel the Court of Common Pleas to re-issue its decision following trial in 
the case of Miller v. Brookside Community, Inc., C.A. No. 2003-12-004 so 
that they might file a timely appeal from that decision in the Superior Court.  
The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed an answer 
requesting that the petition be dismissed.  We find that the petition 
manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  
Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED.   
                                                 
1 DEL. CONST. art IV, § 11(6); SUPR. CT. R. 43. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Brookside successfully sued the Millers 
in the Justice of the Peace Court for $195.00 in unpaid maintenance charges 
and late fees, plus interest.  Following an appeal by the Millers, a trial de 
novo took place in the Court of Common Pleas on June 14, 2004, with the 
same result.  The Court of Common Pleas’ order finding in favor of 
Brookside was docketed on June 15, 2004.  While the decision bears the 
Millers’ correct mailing address, the Millers claim that the Court of 
Common Pleas failed to send them the decision and, furthermore, that they 
only learned about the decision by chance approximately eight months after 
it was issued.  The Millers filed a motion to re-open the decision in February 
2005, which the Court of Common Pleas denied by letter dated June 21, 
2005. 
 
(3) 
On July 22, 2005, the Millers filed a petition for a writ of 
mandamus in the Superior Court requesting that the Court of Common Pleas 
be directed to re-issue its June 15, 2004 decision.  By order dated October 
20, 2005, the Superior Court denied the petition on the ground that the 
Millers had failed to avail themselves of an adequate remedy at law—
namely, a timely appeal from the Court of Common Pleas’ denial of their 
 
3
motion to re-open.  On November 2, 2005, the Superior Court denied the 
Millers’ motion for reargument.2   
 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a lower court to perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent 
to the issuance of the writ, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (i) he has a 
clear right to the performance of the duty; (ii) no other adequate remedy is 
available; and (iii) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform 
its duty.4  Moreover, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appellate 
review.5 
 
(5) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  The petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear right to the 
performance of a duty and an arbitrary failure or refusal to perform that duty 
on the part of the trial court.  They also have failed to demonstrate that a 
timely appeal from the Superior Court’s decision dismissing their petition 
for a writ of mandamus did not provide them with an adequate remedy.  The 
petitioners may not use mandamus as a substitute for a timely-filed appeal.    
Their petition must, therefore, be dismissed. 
 
                                                 
2 A second motion for reargument filed by the Millers was stricken by the Superior Court. 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
5 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965). 
 
4
 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
                     
 
        Justice