American Funding Services v. State of Delaware, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD F. STOKES 1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 SUSSEX C OUN TY C OUR THO USE GEOR GETO WN , DE 19947 JUDGE Samuel L. Guy, Esquire P.O. Box 25464 Wilmington, DE 19899 Ralph K. Durstein, Esquire Deputy Attorney General 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Am erican Funding Services v. State of Delaware et al. C.A. No. S11A-04-006 RFS Respondents Motion to Dismiss. Granted. Submitted: Decided: July 14, 2011 August 23, 2011 Dear Counsel: Respondents the State of Delaware ( State ) and Justice of the Peace Court 2 ( JPC ) (collectively Respondents ) have filed a motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Petitioner American Funding Services ( Funding ). Because a request for relief is not stated by Funding, the Court infers that Funding seeks to vacate a bail forfeiture ordered by JPC in a criminal case where Funding posted $5000 cash bail. The Court confirms the JPC bail forfeiture. Page 1 On November 18, 2008, Troy Neal ( Neal ) was scheduled to appearfor a rule to show cause hearing in JPC. He did not appear. A capias was issued for Neal, and Funding s $5000 bail was forfeited. The JPC Order states that if Neal was brought to Court on December 19, 2008, the Court would consider a motion to set aside part or all of the forfeiture.1 Neither Neal nor Funding appeared on that date, nor did Funding file a motion to set aside. Neal was not subsequently surrendered by the surety into custody, 2 but was arrested on August 4, 2010 while imprisoned in Maryland. In its petition for certiorari, Funding seeks review of the bail forfeiture. Respondents argue first that Funding failed to state grounds for the Court to exercise the common law writ of certiorari. The threshold requirements are that the judgment must be final and there is no other available basis for review.3 Bond was forfeited, but would be reconsidered if Neal appeared as ordered.4 The record shows that Neal and Funding did not appear. Funding did not contest the forfeiture and did not file a motion to set aside. Respondents have not identified any other avenue for review of this final judgment. Thus, subject matter jurisdiction is established, and the motion to dismiss is denied as to this issue. 1 J.P.Ct.R. 46(e)(2). 2 Id. 3 Maddrey v. Justice of the Peace Court 13, 956 A.2d 1204, 1213 (Del.2008). 4 J.P.Ct.R. 46(e)(2). Page 2 Respondents also argue for dismissal because Funding has not met the provision of 10 Del. C. § 3103( c ), which requires that service on the State is not complete until it is made upon the person of the Attorney General or upon the person of the State Solicitor or upon the person of the Chief Depute Attorney General. The record shows that service was rejected at the Georgetown AG s office, but was later made on Lawrence Lewis, State Solicitor. There is no basis for dismissal here. This conclusion also puts to rest Respondent s Rule 12(b)(7) argument that Funding failed to join the State as a party by not completing process. As shown, service was made on the State, and the motion to dismiss on this ground is denied. Respondents challenge Funding s assertion that it was the sole cause of presentation of the Defendant in Court requiring set aside and remission. On the face of the record it is clear that Neal was arrested by Delaware capital police in M aryland where he was doing time on Respondents argue there is no support for this claim and that Funding has failed to state a cause of action against Respondents. This Court has original, exclusive trial court jurisdiction to issue common law writs of certiorari to all inferior tribunals, including the Justice of the Peace courts.5 A writ of certiorari is not the equivalent of an appeal because the Court may not weigh evidence or review factual findings.6 The threshold conditions for certiorari are a final 5 Id. at 1212 (citing Del. Const. of 1897, Art. 4 § 10 and 10 Del. C. § 562). 6 Id. at 1213. Page 3 judgment and no other available means of review.7 As found above, these conditions are met. The only available issues on certiorari are whether the lower tribunal (1) made errors of law, (2) exceeded its jurisdiction or (3) proceeded irregularly. 8 In this context, errors of law occur when the record shows that the lower tribunal proceeded illegally or manifestly contrary to law. 9 The record on certiorari from a Justice of the Peace Court includes the complaint, the answer and docket entries, but not transcripts.10 In this case, Funding has not shown any record of illegal proceedings or acts manifestly contrary to law, as explained below. Nor has Funding shown that JPC does have the authority to revoke bail when a defendant fails to show up for a scheduled court appearance. See J.P. Ct. Crim. R. 46. Moreover, the case Funding cites to, State v. Jefferson,11 states that the failure of a defendant to appear triggers forfeiture of the bond. Jefferson also states that the court will not bail out the bond company every time the company loses on its gamble.12 As for set aside, which Funding claims is appropriate, the docket entries show that Funding did not even show up 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. at 1214. 10 Id. at 1216. 11 2003 WL 22931392, at *1 (Del.Com.Pl.). 12 Id. (citations omitted). Page 4 in JPC on December 19, 2008, to contest the forfeiture or bring Neal to Court. Funding argues that JPC adopted the role of the attorney general in forfeiting the bonding because the State never appeared in Court on Funding s behalf. The AG s role was to prosecute the criminal charges against Neal, not to represent Funding s interests. Setting and forfeiting bail is within JPC s authority. 13 Thus, on certiorari, Funding has not stated a claim for relief based on illegal proceedings or acts contrary to law against Respondents. As to jurisdictional claims on certiorari, dismissal on this issue is appropriate only if the record fails to show that the matter was within the lower tribunal s personal or subject matter jurisdiction.14 It has already been established that JPC had subject matter jurisdiction in this matter, and personal jurisdiction has not been challenged. As to the last issue appropriately considered on certiorari, irregularities of proceedings occur only if the lower tribunal failed to create an adequate record for review.15 Funding does not make this argument. The JPC record provided to this Court reflects on its face each event that occurred, as well as when and where. The record is adequate for review and shows no irregularity. 13 J.P.Ct.Crim.R. 46. 14 Maddrey at 1214. 15 Id. Page 5 Thus, Funding has failed to make a claim upon which relief can be granted on certiorari review. JPC s bond forfeiture is confirmed, and Respondents motion to dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, Richard F. Stokes. cc: Prothonotary Page 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.