MACHULAS v. OVERCAMP, 790 A.2d 476 (Del. 2002)

No. 602, 2001 No. 01A-06-001.Supreme Court of Delaware.
Decided: February 11, 2002

Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County in C.A.

AFFIRMED.

Unpublished Opinion is below.

L.P. MACHULAS, Appellant Below, Appellant, v. ALVIN OVERCAMP, Appellee Below, Appellee. No. 602, 2001 No. 01A-06-001. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: February 11, 2002

Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County in C.A.

Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.

Carolyn Berger, Justice:

ORDER
This 11th day of February 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, L.P. Machulas, has filed this appeal from a Superior Court decision that affirmed the Court of Common Pleas’ dismissal of Machulas’ appeal from the Justice of the Peace Court. The appellee, Alvin Overcamp, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Machulas’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit.

(2) In April 2000, Machulas filed a civil complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court to recover a security deposit held by Overcamp (“Complaint I”). By order dated July 5, 2000, the Justice of the Peace Court dismissed Complaint I on the basis that Machulas sought the “return of a security deposit for a lease that still exists.”[1] Machulas did not file an appeal.

(3) On July 25, 2000, Machulas again filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court to recover the security deposit held by Overcamp (“Complaint II”). By order dated November 16, 2000, the Justice of the Peace Court dismissed Complaint II, sua sponte, on the basis that Complaint I had been adjudicated and dismissed by the Justice of the Peace Court’s order of July 5, 2000.[2] Machulas did not file an appeal. Instead, on or about January 31, 2001, Machulas filed in the Justice of the Peace Court a “motion to vacate” the November 16 dismissal of Complaint II. By order dated March 9, 2001, the Justice of the Peace Court denied Machulas’ motion on the basis that it was “improper and should be filed as an appeal in a higher court.” Machulas appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.

(4) A hearing was held in the Court of Common Pleas on May 25, 2001. Thereafter, by order dated June 1, 2001, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed Machulas’ appeal from the dismissal of Complaint II, on the basis that Complaint I had previously been dismissed with prejudice by the Justice of the Peace Court’s order of July 5, 2000, from which no appeal was taken. Machulas then appealed to the Superior Court.

(5) After briefing, the Superior Court, by order dated October 30, 2001, affirmed the June 1 judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. By orders dated November 14, 2001 and November 21, 2001, the Superior Court denied Machulas’ motions for reargument. This appeal followed.

(6) Overcamp has filed a motion to affirm on the basis that it is manifest on the face of Machulas’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit. After a careful review of the record and the parties’ respective positions on appeal, it is manifest to the Court that the motion to affirm should be granted. We find no error or abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s affirmance of the Court of Common Pleas’ dismissal of Machulas’ appeal from the Justice of the Peace Court. Indeed, we have concluded that this appeal should be affirmed based upon the well-reasoned decision of the Superior Court.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.