Case Title: Stanton v. Stanton

Citation: 

Docket Number: 64, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CAROL STANTON,  
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MARVIN STANTON,  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 64, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK05-01326 
§  Petition Nos. 05-10471 
§                        05-16575 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 16, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 2, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 2nd day of April 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On February 9, 2007, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Family Court’s January 9, 2007 alimony and child 
support order.1  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal 
from the January 9, 2007 order should have been filed on or before February 
8, 2007. 
 
(2) 
On February 13, 2007, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed her 
                                                 
1 The order was dated January 9, 2007 and also was docketed on that date. 
 
2
response to the notice to show cause on March 16, 2007.  The appellant 
states that she “miscounted the days in January” and asks the Court to accept 
the untimely appeal in the interest of justice.  Pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the 
docket of the judgment or order being appealed. 
 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  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.3  An appellant’s pro se status does not 
excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.5 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record reflecting that the appellant’s 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to court-related 
personnel.  Because this case does not fall within the exception to the 
general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal, the Court 
concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
                                                 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).  
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice