Case Title: Barlow v. Barlow

Citation: 

Docket Number: 512, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-10-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
ELLEN BARLOW,1 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
LARRY BARLOW, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 512, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN11-06448 
§  Pet. No. 11-40213 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 1, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 12, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of October 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 17, 2012, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Family Court order dated May 4, 2012.  Among other things, the 
Family Court’s order incorporated the parties’ 2007 separation agreement into the 
final divorce decree.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal 
should have been filed on or before June 4, 2012. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
                                                 
1 The Court assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
 
-2-
untimely filed.2  Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on 
September 29, 2012.  Her response does not offer any explanation for her failure to 
file her notice of appeal in a timely manner.  Instead, the response addresses the 
merits of her appeal from the Family Court’s order.   
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period 
in order to be effective.4  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.5  
Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, her appeal cannot be considered.6 
(4) 
After review, we conclude that this case does not fall within the 
exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  
Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice 
                                                 
2Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i) (2012). 
3Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
4Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2012). 
5Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
6Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).