Title: Ward v. Taylor

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NANCY WARD,1 
 
Respondent/Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DAVID TAYLOR, 
 
Petitioner/Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 380, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below: Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File No. CK14-02158 
§  Pet. Nos. 18-27213 and 18-37900 
§ 
§  IN THE INTEREST OF:  
§  KAREN TAYLOR 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 13, 2019 
Decided: 
September 30, 2019 
 
Before VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 30, 2019, the appellant (“Mother”) filed a notice of appeal 
from a Family Court order dated and docketed July 24, 2019.  Under Supreme Court 
Rule 6(a)(i), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before August 
23, 2019. 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
2 
(2) 
On September 5, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 
Mother to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In 
her response to the notice to show cause, Mother asserts that she moved from 
Delaware to Arizona and notified the Family Court of her change of address, but the 
Family Court sent the order to her old, Delaware address, causing a delay in the 
delivery of the order to Mother.  Notably, in her response, Mother does not say that 
she notified the Family Court of her new address before the July 24, 2019 order was 
mailed. Instead, she attached an envelope addressed to Mother at her old Delaware 
address from Family Court, which is postmarked before the issuance of the July 24, 
2019 order. 
(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.4  Unless an appellant can 
demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.5 
                                                 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
4 Rogers v. Morgan, 2019 WL 168667 (Del. Jan. 10, 2019); Taylor v. Powell, 2015 WL 2452916 
(Del. May 20, 2015). 
5 Rogers, 2019 WL 168667; Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3 
(4) 
Mother has not demonstrated that her failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  The envelope that she has attached 
to her response cannot relate to the July 24, 2019 order, because it is postmarked 
before the date of that order, nor does it demonstrate that Mother informed the 
Family Court before the order was issued that her mailing address had changed.  
Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that 
mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  The appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor    
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice