Opinion ID: 2313529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issues Reviewable on a Common Law Writ of Certiorari

Text: This case presents the opportunity for us to reaffirm and further clarify the role of the common law writ of certiorari as a method of limited review in the Delaware court system. Although the structure of the court system and the jurisdiction of various courts to review the decisions of inferior tribunals have evolved over Delaware's history, the common law writ of certiorari has not changed. The General Assembly has provided in the Delaware Code for statutory writs of certiorari, enabling the Superior Court to review the decisions of certain administrative agencies, such as the State Fire Prevention Commission [33] or a political subdivision's Board of Adjustment. [34] Here, we address only common law writs of certiorari, and not particular statutory writs of certiorari or the scope of review the General Assembly provided for each by statute. [35] A writ of certiorari is one of the oldest common law writs and its origins are obscure in the history of medieval England.... [36] The writ is simply a form that calls up, for review, the record from the lower court or tribunal. [37] The purpose of the writ is to permit a higher court to review the conduct of a lower tribunal of record. [38] A writ of certiorari is not a substitute for, or the functional equivalent of, an appeal. [39] Review on a writ of certiorari issued by the Superior Court differs fundamentally from appellate review because review on certiorari is on the record and the reviewing court may not weigh evidence or review the lower tribunal's factual findings. [40] Petitioners for a writ of certiorari must satisfy two threshold conditions: the judgment must be final and there can be no other available basis for review. [41] Those requirements are met here. There is no dispute that the decision of the three judge panel of the Justice of the Peace Court constituted the final trial adjudication of the summary possession complaint. The General Assembly, importantly, intended it to be so. Summary is not a word susceptible to many meanings. There is no statutory right to appeal from this decision. [42] If the petition meets the threshold requirements for the writ of certiorari, the court must determine if the petition raises the type of claim reviewable on certiorari. [43] The reviewing court does not consider the merits of the case. It considers only those issues historically considered at common law; namely, whether the lower tribunal (1) committed errors of law, (2) exceeded its jurisdiction, or (3) proceeded irregularly. [44] Evaluating whether relief from the judgment below would be appropriate on each of these three issues, we explained in Christiana Town Center, LLC v. New Castle County, that [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.' [45] 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. [46] Reversal for irregularities of proceedings occurs if the lower tribunal failed to create an adequate record for review. [47] The common law writ of certiorari is directed narrowly for limited review of any type of case from any inferior tribunal. The case law in Delaware is clear on this point. [48] Nonetheless, it is suggested that we should endorse morphing that narrow review into full blown intermediate appellate review in circumstances where no further appeals are available. Ordinarily, Justice of the Peace Court judgments are appealable to the Court of Common Pleas de novo. [49] Review on a writ of certiorari, however, is understandably narrow, because in most instances there is available the much more comprehensive and attractive (but for the expense) trial de novo. In summary possession cases, however, no de novo trial option is available. From this it does not follow, however, that the writ of certiorari should be broader when issued in summary possession cases merely because there is no appeal option available. In the summary possession statute, the General Assembly could not have been clearer that summary possession cases should end quickly without further evidentiary review. A party can appeal the initial Justice of the Peace ruling to a three person Justice of the Peace panel. [50] The General Assembly demands that trial options end there. That definitive ending is not subject to even traditional appellate review. The instant case suggests that common law writs of certiorari are being sought as an end run around the General Assembly's clearly expressed intent that no traditional appellate review lies in summary possession cases after a three judge hearing in the Justice of the Peace Court has concluded. Common law writs of certiorari in this context cannot, therefore, be the functional equivalent of an appeal. The General Assembly could have provided for ordinary review de novo, traditional appellate review on the record or statutorily defined certiorari review. They did none of the above. To allow common law writs of certiorari to be used to prolong summary possession actions defeats the clear legislative intent to end those proceedings quickly. Landlords need to know whether they may move forward and tenants need to know whether they may remain on the premises for the balance of the lease or whether they must move on. Delay serves neither party. Nevertheless, common law writs of certiorari may still direct inquiry to the three issues described above  all fundamental errors that appear on the face of the record of the summary possession proceeding and do not contemplate evidentiary review. According to Woolley on Delaware Practice § 897, It is a general rule that on certiorari ... the reviewing court is confined to the consideration of the record returned in obedience to the writ, by which error, if any, must appear... [51] In Castner v. State , we noted, [u]nder principles of law well established in this State, certiorari involves a review of only such errors as appear on the face of the record being considered. [52] On a common law writ of certiorari, the Superior Court cannot look behind the face of the record. Rather, it can only review the record for the purpose of confirming an irregularity in asserting jurisdiction, an improper exercise of its power or the declaration of an improper remedy by the inferior tribunal. For a court to do anything more, such as combing the transcript for an erroneous evidentiary ruling as Maddrey asks us to sanction in this case, converts the limited certiorari review of summary possession into an impermissible full appellate review that is inconsistent with both the function of the common law writ and the General Assembly's intent to terminate landlord tenant possession disputes summarily. As an example of an error properly reviewable on a writ of certiorari, the Superior Court can consider irregularities shown in the docket entries. In this case, one docket entry reads, The three judge panel is satisfied that the plaintiff Arbor Management ... has proven by a preponderance of the evidence... However, if that docket entry had instead read, The three judge panel is satisfied that defendant Cornelia Maddrey has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt ..., that docket entry would show on the face of the record an error of law in the proceeding. The panel's shift of the burden of proof to the defendant and changing preponderance of the evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt would have been an error of law apparent on the face of the record. 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 (as was done here) that explains who prevailed and the burden of proof applied. Similarly, the proper service of the complaint and an irregularity of process, a lack of jurisdiction, or a remedy ordered outside of statutory authority would also be reviewable from the face of the record.