Garber v. New Castle County Department of Land Use, N16A-05-012 AML

Background

In 2012 Garber (Carpentry Unlimited) contracted to build a house for Wartel and Podolsky; County issued building permit and later a certificate of occupancy.
In January 2016 the New Castle County Department of Land Use issued two violation notices alleging multiple violations of the County Building Code (Chapter 6).
A five-hour rule-to-show-cause (RTSC) hearing was held Feb 9, 2016; the hearing officer found Garber responsible for 8 of 18 violations and issued a written RTSC Decision on Feb 24, 2016.
Garber appealed to the New Castle County Board of License, Inspection, and Review; the Board held an eight-hour appeal hearing on May 11, 2016, limited the Board hearing to witnesses who had testified at the RTSC hearing, and affirmed the hearing officer in a 23-page Board Decision.
Garber sought certiorari review in Superior Court, asserting statute-of-limitations error, misapplication of the Spearin doctrine and equitable estoppel, reliance on unqualified experts, burden-shifting, and improper exclusion of witness testimony.
Superior Court denied the writ and affirmed the Board, holding certiorari review is limited to the face of the limited record (complaint, answer, docket entries) and will not permit plenary factual review of the hearing transcript or evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board misapplied statute-of-limitations (time-of-discovery/inherent unknowable injury)	Garber: Board failed to find when injury occurred and why Department was blamelessly ignorant; tolling applies	County: No facial legal error in Board decision; factual disputes unsuitable for certiorari	Denied — no manifest error of law on the face of the limited record; factual merits cannot be reviewed on certiorari
Whether Spearin doctrine or equitable estoppel applied	Garber: Should have applied Spearin/equitable estoppel to relieve him from liability	County: No authority showing Spearin in administrative enforcement; Garber failed to develop requisite factual/legal foundation	Denied — Board addressed the doctrines and found no adequate factual/legal foundation; not reviewable on certiorari
Whether Board relied on unqualified/unauthorized experts or biased opinions	Garber: Violation notices based on biased/unqualified expert opinion; another inspector allegedly did not verify violations	County: Board had sufficient testimonial/documentary basis to uphold violations; factual disputes are for the Board	Denied — Board had discretion to evaluate sufficiency of evidence; certiorari cannot resolve evidentiary credibility disputes
Whether Board improperly excluded additional witness testimony or shifted burden of proof	Garber: Board excluded witnesses and shifted burden to him to disprove violations	County: Appeals are not for new evidence; disputed witness testimony relates to the RTSC transcript/evidence	Denied — Board permissibly excluded new evidence; allegations of burden-shifting rest on trial testimony not in the certiorari record and are not reviewable

Key Cases Cited

Black v. New Castle Cty. Bd. of License, 117 A.3d 1027 (Del. 2015) (defines limited scope of certiorari review and record)
Maddrey v. Justice of Peace Ct. 13, 956 A.2d 1204 (Del. 2008) (explains certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal; record limitations)
In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080 (Del. 1992) (transcripts and evidentiary record generally not part of certiorari record)
Du Pont v. Family Ct. for New Castle Cnty., 153 A.2d 189 (Del. 1959) (distinguishes certiorari from plenary appeal)
Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431 (Del. 1977) (certiorari differs fundamentally from appeal; limited review)
Quaker Hill Place v. Saville, 523 A.2d 947 (Del. Super. 1987) (discusses substantial-evidence standard in a different administrative context)
United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1918) (establishes Spearin doctrine regarding contractor reliance on owner-provided plans)