Case Title: Cephas v. Cephas

Citation: 

Docket Number: 42, 2019

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-08-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAELA CEPHAS, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KATRINA CEPHAS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 42, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N17C-03-1679 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  June 14, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided:     August 14, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff below-appellant, Michaela Cephas, filed this notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order granting the motion for summary judgment filed 
by the defendant below-appellee, Katrina Cephas.1  After careful consideration of 
the parties’ arguments, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.  
(2) 
Katrina is Michaela’s aunt.  In 2002, after the death of Michaela’s 
mother following surgery, the Family Court named Katrina the guardian of 
                                          
 
1 For purposes of clarity, the parties are referred to as Michaela and Katrina throughout this order. 
2 
 
Michaela’s person.  Katrina filed, on behalf of the estate and Michaela, a medical 
malpractice case arising from the death of Michaela’s mother.  In 2004, Katrina filed 
a petition for her appointment as guardian of Michaela’s property and approval of a 
settlement in the Superior Court and the Court of Chancery.  The petition was 
granted and jurisdiction was transferred to the Court of Chancery.   
(3) 
 As part of the settlement agreement, a lump sum was paid to Katrina 
as next friend and guardian ad litem for Michaela.  The court order approving the 
settlement required this money to be placed in a guardianship account for Michaela.  
The settlement agreement also provided for the payment of $500 a month to Katrina 
as guardian of Michaela until 2016.  The order approving the settlement did not refer 
to the monthly payments.  The payor paid the $500 a month to Katrina, not the 
guardianship account for Michaela.   
(4) 
In January 2007, the Family Court rescinded Katrina’s guardianship 
and returned Michaela to her father’s custody.  In 2012, Michaela’s father asked the 
Office of the Register in Chancery about replacing Katrina with himself as the 
guardian of Michaela’s property, but did not file a petition to do so.  In March 2016, 
a Court of Chancery Master granted Katrina and Michaela’s petition for the transfer 
of the guardianship account funds to Michaela.  Katrina was discharged as guardian.  
Michaela signed a release acknowledging that she had received all money owed to 
her by Katrina and releasing Katrina from all suits concerning the guardianship.    
3 
 
(5) 
In November 2016, Michaela’s father sent a letter to the Court of 
Chancery alleging that the $500 monthly payments were intended for Michaela’s 
benefit and that Katrina should not have received those payments after the rescission 
of the Family Court guardianship.  Katrina responded to the allegations.  A Court of 
Chancery Master issued a report concluding that Katrina had not breached her 
fiduciary duties and that the release barred Michaela’s claims against Katrina.  
Michaela’s father filed exceptions to the report. 
(6) 
 On February 7, 2017, the Court of Chancery affirmed the Master’s 
rulings on procedural grounds, not the substantive grounds in the report.  The Court 
of Chancery held that Michaela’s father lacked standing to assert the claims because 
Michaela was a competent adult who could assert the claims in her own name.  If 
Michaela wished to pursue a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, she could do so by 
initiating a new, separate action in her own name.  The Court of Chancery ruled that 
the affirmance of the Master’s report was without prejudice to Michaela’s right to 
pursue her claims in accordance with Court of Chancery rules and procedures.  
Michaela’s father sent a letter to the Office of the Register in Chancery objecting to 
the Court of Chancery’s decision, which was returned to him because the matter was 
closed. 
(7) 
On March 30, 2017, Michaela filed a one-page complaint in the 
Superior Court.  She alleged that Katrina was not entitled to the $59,500 (119 
4 
 
monthly payments of $500) she received while Michaela was with her father.   On 
June 22, 2017, Michaela filed an amended complaint that included the Family Court 
order rescinding guardianship and excerpts of the settlement agreement and the order 
approving the settlement.  After answering the complaint, Katrina filed a motion for 
summary judgment.  The Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment 
on January 9, 2019.  The Superior Court held there was no breach of the settlement 
agreement, the issue raised by Michaela was fully litigated in the Court of Chancery, 
and the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over any breach of fiduciary duty claims.  
This appeal followed. 
(8) 
On appeal, Michaela argues that Katrina should not have retained the 
$500 a month payments after the Family Court guardianship was rescinded in 2007.  
We review grants of summary judgment and questions of law de novo.2 
(9) 
To the extent Michaela is asserting a breach of the settlement 
agreement, the Superior Court did not err in concluding that there was no breach.  
The settlement agreement provided for the payment of $500 a month to Katrina as 
guardian of Michaela from December 16, 2004 through February 16, 2016.  
Although the Family Court guardianship was rescinded in 2007, Katrina remained 
guardian of Michaela’s property in the Court of Chancery until 2016.  As the 
                                          
 
2 Ramirez v. Murdick, 948 A.2d 395, 399 (Del. 2008); LeVan v. Indep. Mall, Inc., 940 A.2d 929, 
932 (Del. 2007). 
5 
 
Superior Court recognized, it may have made sense to modify the Court of Chancery 
guardianship when Michaela returned to her father’s custody, but no party pursued 
such a modification. 
(10) To the extent Michaela alleges that Katrina breached her fiduciary 
duties as guardian, the Superior Court did not err in concluding that it lacked 
jurisdiction over this claim.  A breach of fiduciary duty claim must be brought in the 
Court of Chancery.3  In light of these rulings, it is unnecessary to resolve the effect, 
if any, of the Court of Chancery decisions in the Superior Court proceedings.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3 See, e.g., Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 131 A.3d 806, 812 n.13 (Del. 2016) (holding 
policyholders were required to bring breach of fiduciary claim in the Court of Chancery).