Court Opinion

ID: 9951851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 14:02:12.857974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:12.002260
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RONALD DORSEY,                             )
                                           )
      Appellant,                           )
                                           )
            v.                             )     C.A. No: N23A-03-003 FWW
                                           )
AKA MANAGEMENT,                            )
                                           )
      Appellee.                            )

                         Submitted: December 14, 2023
                           Decided: March 18, 2024

Upon Ronald Dorsey’s Complaint in Certiorari from Justice of the Peace Court 13,
                                AFFIRMED

                                    ORDER

Ronald Dorsey, 432 South Jackson Street, Wilmington, DE 19805, pro se, Appellant.

Brian T. Murray, Esquire, RHODUNDA WILLIAMS & KONDRASCHOW, LLC,
1521 Concord Pike, Suite 205, Wilmington, DE 19803, Attorney for Appellee AKA
Management.

WHARTON, J.
        This 18th day of March 2024, upon consideration of Appellant Ronald

Dorsey’s (“Dorsey”) Opening Brief,1 Appellee AKA Management’s (“AKA”)

Answering Brief,2 Dorsey’s Reply Brief,3 and the record in this case, it appears to

the Court that:

        1.      This case is the aftermath of several landlord-tenant proceedings

between Dorsey and AKA Management in Justice of the Peace Court 13 in 2022 and

2023.        Those proceedings were summary possession actions related to 569A

Homestead Road, Unit 1, Wilmington, Delaware.4 After the initial proceeding was

dismissed, two subsequent cases were filed on June 14 and July 22, 2022 and were

consolidated by the Justice of the Peace Court.5 A three judge panel heard the

consolidated cases in a trial de novo held on January 11, 2023.6 The panel issued an

Order of Possession in favor of AKA on February 27, 2023.7 AKA requested a Writ

of Possession on June 14, 2023.8 The Justice of the Peace Court issued a writ on the

1
  Appellant’s Op. Br., D.I. 40.
2
  Appellee’s Ans. Br., D.I. 42.
3
  Appellant’s Reply Br., D.I. 45.
4
  D.I. 21.
5
  Id.
6
  Id.
7
  Id.
8
  Id.

                                          2
June 15, 2023.9 On June 23, 2023, the Justice of the Peace Court denied Dorsey’s

first Motion to Stay, finding it untimely and moot.10

      2.     In this Court, Dorsey filed his Complaint in Certiorari11 along with a

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on March 7, 2023.12 Paragraph 13 of the

Complaint requested a stay of execution of eviction “until evidence is showed in

[C]ourt of higher authority.”13 On March 16, 2023, this Court granted the Motion to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis.14 On June 27, 2023, Dorsey filed a Motion to Stay in

this Court.15 The Court denied his motion on July 18, 2023.16 The Court concluded,

preliminarily, that Dorsey had little likelihood of success on appeal because his

attempt to retry facts is beyond the purview of this Court on certiorari review.17

      3.    Dorsey submitted his Opening Brief on September 18, 2023.18 AKA

submitted its Answering Brief on October 6, 2023.19 Dorsey submitted his Reply

9
  Id.
10
   Id.
11
   D.I. 1.
12
   D.I. 5.
13
   D.I. 1.
14
   D.I. 10.
15
   D.I. 16.
16
   D.I. 22.
17
   Id.
18
   Appellant’s Op. Br., D.I. 40. Despite the parties differing views of the timeliness
of Dorsey’s Opening Brief, the Court considers it.
19
   Appellee’s Ans. Br., D.I. 42.

                                          3
Brief in November 2023.20 The matter was assigned for decision on December 14,

2023.21

      4.     Dorsey asks the Court to reverse the decision of the Justice of the Peace

Court and remand the case for a new trial.22 Dorsey seeks re-entry into the unit and

an increase in the damages awarded to him.23 Dorsey’s “Summary of the Argument”

section of his Opening Brief includes the following: 1) “[t]he 7 day letter was not

supported by giving possession due to tenant not being able to access unit until

February 7, 2023[;]” 2) “[t]he tenant was awarded damage [sic] for illegal ouster but

was denied for the correct time period[;]” 3) “[t]he landlord did a self-help eviction

and was awarded possession due to a lie not supported by facts [sic] no witnesses or

anyone supported there [sic] claim[;]” and 4) “[t]he landlord made statement [sic] to

the [C]ourt on record and transcript audio about subletting but had no evidence to

support claim[.]”24

      5.     AKA argues that Dorsey “has only sought re-litigation of the facts and

presented nothing reviewable under certiorari.”25 AKA asserts that the arguments

in the “Summary of the Argument” ask the Court to impermissibly make new

20
   Appellant’s Reply Br., D.I. 45; The Court granted Dorsey an extension beyond the
Briefing Schedule due date. D.I. 44.
21
   D.I. 46.
22
   Appellant’s Op. Br. at 9, D.I. 40.
23
   See id.
24
   Id. at 6.
25
   Appellee’s Ans. Br. at 6, D.I. 42.

                                          4
findings of fact.26 Additionally, AKA contends that the Court’s review of this writ

of certiorari is only on the record and that alleged facts, not contained in the record,

are irrelevant and should be ignored.27

      6.     Dorsey replies that he is not challenging the findings of fact but is trying

to show the irregularity in the proceedings and errors of law.28 Dorsey posits the use

of factual findings to prove the irregulates and errors, writing that he was not able to

cure the 7-day letter because he didn’t have access to the unit for the reasons he

submits.29

      7.     Because Dorsey has brought a Complaint in Certiorari, the Court must

apply the limited scope of review applicable to those actions. The purpose of a writ

of certiorari is to permit this Court to review the record of a proceeding decided by

a lower tribunal.30 Delaware law is clear that a writ of certiorari is not the functional

equivalent of appellate review.31 “Certiorari review differs from appellate review

in that an appeal ‘brings up the case on its merits,’ while a writ brings the matter

26
   See id at 6-7.
27
   Id. at 6.
28
   Appellant’s Reply Br. at 11, D.I. 45.
29
   Id. at 12.
30
   Christiana Town Ctr., LLC v. New Castle Cnty., 2004 WL 2921830, at *2 (Del.
Dec. 16, 2004).
31
   Maddrey v. Just. of Peace Ct. 13, 956 A.2d 1204, 1213 (Del. 2008).

                                           5
before the reviewing court to ‘look at the regularity of the proceedings.’”32 When

conducting the review of the lower tribunal, this Court may not “look behind the

face of the record” nor may it engage in “combing the transcript for an erroneous

evidentiary ruling.”33 That is because “[i]t is the function of ‘the agency, not the

court, to weigh evidence and resolve conflicting testimony and issues of

credibility.’”34 Instead, the Court only “considers the record to determine whether

the lower tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, committed errors of law, or proceeded

irregularly.”35 The Court may not weigh evidence, disturb the lower tribunal's

factual findings or decide the merits of the case.36 Therefore, the Court shall uphold

the decision of the lower tribunal unless the petitioner can demonstrate that the

decision “was arbitrary and unreasonable” on its face.37

      8.     Dorsey filed the Complaint in Certiorari pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 562.38

In his Opening Brief, Dorsey adds that he “filed appeal due to irregularity in error

32
   395 Assocs., LLC v. New Castle Cnty., 2006 WL 2021623, at *3 (Del. Super. July
19, 2006) (quoting Breasure v. Swartzentruber, 1988 WL 116422, at *1 (Del. Super.
Oct. 7, 1988)).
33
   Maddrey, 956 A.2d at 1215.
34
   395 Assocs., 2006 WL 2021623 at *3 (quoting Christiana Town Ctr., 2004 WL
2921830, at *2).
35
   Christiana Town Ctr., 2004 WL 2921830, at *2.
36
   Reise v. Bd. of Bldg. Appeals of Newark, 746 A.2d 271, 274 (Del. 2000).
37
   See Domus GCK, JV/LLC v. New Castle Cnty. Dep't of Land Use, 2010 WL
1427357, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 7, 2010).
38
   Complaint in Certiorari at ¶ 3, D.I. 1.

                                          6
[sic] of his case.”39 The Complaint in Certiorari is a writ of certiorari and not an

appeal.40 The Delaware Supreme Court has held that “[a] writ of certiorari is not a

substitute for, or the functional equivalent of, an appeal.”41 The purpose of a writ of

certiorari is to permit this Court to review the record of a proceeding decided by a

lower tribunal.42 Dorsey has not given the court any reason to believe that the Justice

of the Peace Court exceeded its jurisdiction, committed errors of law, or proceeded

irregularly.43 Furthermore, Dorsey has not given the Court any reason to reverse the

lower Court’s decision and remand the case for a new trial, allow re-entry onto the

property or increase the damages awarded to him.

      9.     The Court wrote in its prior opinion that the dispositive issue in his

application for a stay was an assessment of Dorsey's likelihood of success on

appeal.44 Under the guidance of Kirpat, Inc. v. Delaware Alcoholic Beverage

Control Comm’n,45 the Court assessed Dorsey’s chances on appeal given the

Complaint in Certiorari:

             Dorsey's Complaint in Certiorari simply recites his
             version of the facts in the apparent expectation that this
             Court will provide him with an opportunity to relitigate
             them. But, retrying the facts is beyond this Court's purview

39
   Appellant’s Op. Br. at 5, D.I. 40.
40
   The accompanying briefs do not act as an appeal either.
41
   Maddrey, 956 A.2d at 1213.
42
   Christiana Town Ctr., 2004 WL 2921830, at *2.
43
   Id.
44
   Dorsey, 2023 WL 4996696, at *2.
45
   741 A.2d 356, 357 (Del. 1998).

                                          7
             on certiorari review. Dorsey has not given the Court any
             reason to believe that the Justice of the Peace Court
             exceeded its jurisdiction, committed errors of law, or
             proceeded irregularly. Thus, the Court preliminarily
             concludes that Dorsey has little likelihood of success on
             appeal.46

The Court maintains this conclusion after carefully reviewing the parties’

contentions. As previously stated, the Complaint in Certiorari is a writ of certiorari

and not an appeal. Dorsey again recites his version of the facts in the apparent

expectation that the Court will review them.47 Dorsey does not point to any

procedural irregularity; he does not identify any errors of law; nor does he challenge

the jurisdiction of Court 13. Instead, all four of Dorsey’s arguments challenge the

findings of fact made by the Justice of the Peace Court. The Court may not disturb

the findings of fact made below.48

      Therefore, the decision of Justice of the Peace Court 13 is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                     /s/ Ferris W. Wharton
                                                      Ferris W. Wharton, J.

46
   Dorsey, 2023 WL 4996696, at *3.
47
   See Appellant’s Op. Br., D.I. 40; See Appellee’s Ans. Br., D.I. 42.
48
   Reise, 746 A.2d at 274.

                                          8