Title: Black v. Justice of the Peace Court 13, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 86, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 25, 2014

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.