DiFebo v. Board of Adjustment of
132 A.3d 1154
| Del. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Mary Sue DiFebo sought certiorari review in Superior Court of a Board of Adjustment decision that approved subdividing two nearby parcels into four flag lots.
- The Board’s decision was filed, and § 1314(a) requires petitions challenging Board decisions be filed within 30 days.
- DiFebo filed a timely initial petition but later filed an amended petition adding the actual property owners (Paverds and Osbornes) after the 30‑day statutory period.
- The Superior Court dismissed the amended petition, holding (1) DiFebo failed to name the owners within § 1314’s 30‑day filing period, and (2) she failed to satisfy Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c)(3) for relation back.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether Rule 15(c)(3)’s 1993 amendment permits relation back based on the Rules’ service period (120 days) and whether DiFebo established the kind of “mistake” Delaware requires for relation back.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 15(c)(3) requires amendment be filed within the statute of limitations for § 1314 or within the Rules’ service period | DiFebo: relation back governed by Rule 15(c)(3), which requires satisfaction within the period provided by statute or the Rules for service (i.e., 120 days) | County/Board: relation back must satisfy the statute (§ 1314) 30‑day filing period | Court: Rule 15(c)(3) uses the Rules’ service period; relation‑back timing governed by Rule 4(j) (120 days), so being outside § 1314’s 30 days does not automatically foreclose relation back |
| Whether DiFebo showed a qualifying “mistake” about defendants’ identity to permit relation back under Delaware’s Rule 15(c)(3) | DiFebo: amendment should relate back; attorney’s failure to name owners was a mistake | County/Board: petitioner knew owners for 15+ years; attorney’s error is not the type of identity mistake that warrants relation back under Delaware law | Court: affirmed dismissal — DiFebo failed to meet Delaware’s “strict approach” to mistake (no true mistake as to identity), so Rule 15(c)(3) relief unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- King Constr., Inc. v. Plaza Four Realty, LLC, 976 A.2d 145 (Del. 2009) (standard of appellate review for motions to dismiss)
- CCS Inv’rs, LLC v. Brown, 977 A.2d 301 (Del. 2009) (Delaware adopts a strict approach to what constitutes a mistake of identity under Rule 15(c))
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (Federal rule focuses on what the added party knew or should have known, relaxing the identity‑mistake inquiry)
- Hackett v. Bd. of Adjustment of Rehoboth Beach, 794 A.2d 596 (Del. 2002) (prior Delaware Board of Adjustment relation‑back precedent discussed)
- Preston v. Bd. of Adjustment of New Castle Cty., 772 A.2d 787 (Del. 2001) (prior Delaware Board of Adjustment relation‑back precedent discussed)