Biddles Construction, LLC v. Seeley
K15A-11-001 WLW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Biddles Construction, an LLC, sued the Seeleys in Justice of the Peace (JP) Court for $859 for an unpaid roofing balance; the Seeleys counterclaimed for repair costs and prevailed (~$15,000).
- JP Court entered judgment on May 8, 2015. Fourteen days later (May 22), the LLC’s owner (a non‑attorney) filed a notice of appeal, praecipe, and complaint in the Court of Common Pleas on behalf of the LLC.
- The Seeleys moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing (1) an artificial entity cannot be represented by a non‑attorney on appeal and (2) the complaint failed to state a claim.
- Two days after the motion, counsel entered an appearance for Biddles and sought leave to amend the complaint.
- The Court of Common Pleas dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a notice of appeal filed on behalf of an artificial entity must be signed by an attorney and that the non‑attorney filing deprived the court of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- Biddles appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed dismissal, reasoning statutory appellate jurisdiction incorporates the procedural rule requiring attorney signature and that the defective filing was jurisdictional, not a mere technicality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction where a non‑attorney filed a timely notice of appeal for an LLC | The filing was timely; clerk’s acceptance and desire to decide merits mean court should hear appeal despite non‑attorney signature | A corporation/LLC must be represented by counsel on appeal; non‑attorney filing is void and deprives court of jurisdiction | Court held no jurisdiction — non‑attorney notice of appeal by an artificial entity is jurisdictionally defective |
| Whether JP Court Rule permitting non‑attorney representation carries over to Common Pleas appeals | Biddles argued reliance on permitted JP practice and clerk’s acceptance | Seeleys argued Supreme Court Rule 57 doesn’t apply when appeal is taken to Court of Common Pleas; statutory limits control | Held Rule 57 exception does not apply to appeals to Court of Common Pleas; statutory and court rules require attorney signature |
| Whether clerk’s failure to reject the filing estops dismissal or constitutes excusable neglect | Biddles argued reliance on clerk’s acceptance and excusable neglect justify relief | Seeleys argued statutory jurisdictional limits cannot be expanded by clerical omissions or reliance | Court rejected reliance/excusable‑neglect claims; jurisdictional rules control and clerk error does not confer jurisdiction |
| Whether dismissal is a harsh technicality or proper enforcement of jurisdictional rule | Biddles urged merits preference and avoidance of technical dismissals | Seeleys emphasized longstanding rule that artificial entities must be represented by licensed counsel and defective filings can deprive court of jurisdiction | Court treated defect as jurisdictional, not a mere technicality, and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Transpolymer Indus., Inc. v. Chapel Main Corp., 582 A.2d 936 (Del. 1990) (artificial entities must be represented by licensed counsel in court)
- Di’s Inc. v. McKinney, 673 A.2d 1199 (Del. 1996) (courts prefer to decide appeals on the merits absent prejudice from technical defects)
- Dzedzej v. Prusinski, 259 A.2d 384 (Del. Super. 1969) (defective pleading may deprive a court of jurisdiction)
- Casey v. Southern Corp., 29 A.2d 174 (Del. 1942) (clerical omission does not excuse failure to satisfy statutory appellate requirements)