Case Title: Snyder v. Snyder

Citation: 

Docket Number: 272, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CANDY L. SNYDER,1  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 272, 2009 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Family Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
MATTHEW R. SNYDER, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
File No. CK05-01326 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 25, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 15, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 15th day of December 2009, upon consideration of the briefs of 
the parties and the Family Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Candy L. Snyder (“Mother”), has appealed the 
Family Court’s order of April 15, 2009 that denied her Request for Review 
of a Commissioner’s Order.  Having concluded that the commissioner’s 
order was improvidently issued, we reverse the Family Court’s judgment 
and remand the matter for further proceedings. 
                                          
 
1 The caption reflects pseudonyms previously assigned by the Court.  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 
7(d). 
 
2
 
(2) 
It appears from the record that the appellee, Matthew R. Snyder 
(“Father”), filed a petition for modification of child support in February 
2008.  After a hearing on August 27, 2008, a commissioner issued a 
permanent modification support order (hereinafter “commissioner’s support 
order”) dated August 29, 2008. 
 
(3) 
On September 23, 2008, Mother filed a document entitled 
“objections to order.”  Mother’s objections sought relief from the 
commissioner’s support order.  By order dated October 15, 2008, the 
commissioner denied Mother’s objections on the basis that “[a]ll issues were 
addressed at the child support hearing.” 
 
(4) 
Mother appealed the commissioner’s October 15, 2008 order to 
this Court.  On November 13, 2008, the Clerk issued a notice directing that 
Mother show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s 
lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a commissioner’s order.  
Eventually, the Court dismissed Mother’s appeal when she did not respond 
to the notice to show cause.2 
 
(5) 
On November 13, 2008, Mother filed a Request for Review of a 
Commissioner’s Order.  In her request, Mother sought review of the 
                                          
 
2 Snyder v. Snyder, 2009 WL 189885 (Del. Supr.).  
 
3
commissioner’s October 15, 2008 order and “to make every objection filed 
in response to [the commissioner’s support order] a part of . . . [the] review.” 
 
(6) 
After an independent review of the record and a de novo 
determination of the commissioner’s October 15, 2008 order, the Family 
Court accepted the order “in whole.”  The Family Court declined to review 
the commissioner’s support order, however, on the basis that Mother’s 
November 13, 2008 request for review was untimely filed as to that order.  
This appeal followed. 
 
(7) 
A party’s right to review of a commissioner’s order is governed 
by title 10, section 915(d)(1) of the Delaware Code.3  That section provides: 
Any party, except a party in default of appearance before a 
Commissioner, may appeal a final order of a Commissioner to a 
judge of the Court by filing and serving written objections to 
such order, as provided by rules of the Court, within 30 days 
from the date of a Commissioner’s order.  A judge of the Court 
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 
Commissioner’s order to which objection is made.  A judge of 
the Court may accept, reject or modify in whole or in part the 
order of the Commissioner.  The judge may also receive 
evidence or recommit the matter to the Commissioner with 
instruction.4 
 
 
(8) 
In this case, it appears to the Court that Mother was effectively 
denied her statutory right to appeal the commissioner’s support order when 
her timely-filed “objections to order” were considered by a commissioner 
                                          
 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10 § 915(d)(1) (Supp. 2008). 
4 Id. 
 
4
and not a judge.  In the interest of justice, we will remand this matter to the 
Family Court with instructions to (i) vacate the commissioner’s October 15, 
2008 order and (ii) make a de novo determination of the commissioner’s 
support order under section 915(d)(1) after considering Mother’s “objections 
to order” nunc pro tunc. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is REVERSED.  This matter is REMANDED for further 
proceedings in accordance with this Order.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice