Opinion ID: 2010991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appeal of ZBA's Decision

Text: On October 12, 2006, the appellees/petitioners-below filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Superior Court seeking review of the ZBA's decision, pursuant to title 22, section 328 of the Delaware Code [6] and Superior Court Civil Rule 72. [7] The caption of the petition named only the ZBA as the respondent and did not name PDI or CCS as parties or as respondents in either the caption or the body of the petition. The body of the petition did describe the relationship between CCS and PDI, and it did state that CCS applied for and received the variance. The petition was filed one day before the appeal period expired. That same day, Goddess, counsel for the appellees/petitioners-below, sent Stabler, counsel for CCS, an email with a copy of the petition attached. The subject line of the email is: Gibraltar/appeal. The email states: WendieAttached is a copy of the appeal (i.e., petition for statutory writ of certiorari ) which I filed earlier this afternoon. The filename for the attached petition is: Gibraltar ZBOA appeal (Filed). On October 27, 2006, the appellees/petitioners-below filed a praecipe with the Superior Court Prothonotary requesting that a summons be sent to the Sheriff for service of the petition upon the ZBA and upon CCS, in care of its attorney, Stabler. The ZBA was served on November 13, 2006, and the writ was returned on November 30, 2006. The Sheriff attempted to serve Stabler on November 6, 2006, but she refused service because she was not the registered agent for CCS.