Case Title: Mahan v Mahan

Citation: 

Docket Number: 552, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EDWARD F. MAHAN, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DEBORAH A. MAHAN, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 552, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN94-09037 
§  Petition No. 04-20598 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 11, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 28, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of June 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Edward F. Mahan (“Husband”), filed 
an appeal from the Family Court’s September 13, 2006 property division 
order.1  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that a property division hearing took place 
in the Family Court on September 5, 2006.  Husband and respondent-
appellee, Deborah A. Mahan (“Wife”) appeared and testified at the hearing.  
In its September 13, 2006 order, which was issued following the hearing, the 
                                                 
1 Mahan was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in his appeal.  Supr. Ct. R. 20(h). 
 
2
Family Court divided the marital property and, specifically, ordered the 
marital home to be sold and the proceeds divided equally between Husband 
and Wife.  The Family Court declined to allow Husband the opportunity to 
purchase Wife’s interest in the home on the ground that Husband had not 
paid anything on the mortgage for the previous seven months and was 
unlikely to be able to borrow the funds necessary to purchase Wife’s 
interest.       
 
(3) 
Husband appealed from the Family Court’s September 13, 2006 
order.  In connection with the appeal, he filed a motion in the Family Court 
requesting that he be provided transcripts at State expense.  Finding that 
Husband had sufficient resources to pay for transcripts, the Family Court 
denied the request on November 29, 2006.  In his appeal, Husband claims 
that the Family Court improperly ordered that the marital home be sold and 
the proceeds distributed equally to him and Wife and improperly refused to 
give him the opportunity to purchase Wife’s interest.   
 
(4) 
The Supreme Court Rules direct each party to include in his or 
her appendix those portions of the record relevant to any claims on appeal.2  
The Rules also place the burden on the appellant of producing such portions 
of the trial transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e). 
 
3
account of the context in which the error allegedly occurred.3  The record 
provided to this Court by an appellant must include a transcript of all 
evidence relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion.4  A civil litigant 
does not have an absolute right to a copy of a transcript at State expense.5  
Even an appellant who is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 
is required to make his or her own financial arrangements to obtain the 
necessary transcripts.6   
 
(5) 
Husband has not provided the Court with those portions of the 
transcript of the September 5, 2006 hearing bearing on his claims.  As such, 
this Court has no adequate basis for evaluating Husband’s summary claims 
of error.  Husband’s appeal is, therefore, unavailing. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
   
 
 
        
 
 
                                                 
3 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987). 
4 Id. 
5 Porter v. Mannion, Del. Supr., No. 535, 2003, Berger, J. (July 20, 2004). 
6 Smith v. Deptula, Del. Supr., No. 333, 2003, Holland, J. (Dec. 8, 2003).