Title: Zane v. Harris

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WALTER ZANE,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MARJORIE HARRIS, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 714, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN98-10122  
§  Petition No. 10-10651  
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 8, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 15, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of September 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the record on appeal,2 it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Walter Zane (“Zane”), filed this appeal from a Family 
Court order, dated October 21, 2010, which dismissed his request for review of a 
Commissioner’s order because Zane failed to provide the transcripts necessary for 
the judge to conduct a de novo review.3  The Commissioner’s order, dated July 14, 
                                                 
1 Pseudonyms were assigned to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 The appellee failed to file an answering brief on appeal.  Accordingly, the parties were 
informed that the appeal would be decided on the basis of the opening brief and the record 
below. 
3 See Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 53.1(c) (2011) (providing that a party seeking review of a 
Commissioner’s order shall cause to be prepared a transcript of the proceedings before the 
Commissioner). 
 
2
2010, reduced Zane’s child support obligation from $1078 per month to $442 per 
month.   Having reviewed Zane’s contentions on appeal and the record below, we 
find no abuse of the Family Court’s discretion in dismissing Zane’s request for de 
novo review.  Accordingly, the Family Court’s judgment shall be affirmed. 
 
(2) 
The parties are the parents of one child born in March 1998.  The 
record reflects that the Family Court entered an order on April 13, 2000 directing 
Zane to pay $365 per month in child support.  That order was modified, effective 
June 23, 2003, due to a change of circumstances, to require Zane to pay $950 per 
month.  In 2007, Zane’s support obligation was again modified to increase his 
arrears payment so that his overall monthly support obligation was $1078.  In 
March 2010, Zane filed a motion for modification of the 2007 support order.  In a 
supporting memorandum, Zane argued that his child support obligation should be 
reduced because he had been denied the right to counsel at the 2003 modification 
hearing and because the application of the Melson formula, which is used to 
calculate support obligations in Delaware,4 was unconstitutional in his case and led 
to a child support obligation that constituted cruel and unusual punishment and 
violated his equal protection rights because it discriminated against him as a man.  
                                                 
4 See Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d 1197 (Del. 1989) (discussing the rebuttable presumption 
known as the “Melson formula,” which has been adopted in Delaware as a uniform procedure 
applied by the Family Court in discharging its duty to calculate support obligations).  
 
3
 
(3) 
After holding a hearing on Zane’s petition for modification, the 
Family Court Commissioner entered an order dated July 14, 2010 finding that there 
had been a change of circumstances.  The Commissioner, therefore, reduced 
Zane’s child support obligation from $1078 per month to $442 per month.  The 
Commissioner further ordered that, due to Zane’s incarceration,5 his payment of 
support was suspended until thirty days after his release from incarceration, though 
arrearages would continue to accrue.  On August 4, 2010, Zane sought de novo 
review of the Commissioner’s order.  He also sought a waiver of the costs for 
production of the transcript.  The Family Court denied Zane’s request for a waiver 
of the transcript fee on the ground that Zane was voluntarily out of work.  The trial 
court ordered Zane to pay the transcript fee within 30 days.  After Zane failed to 
pay the required fee, the Family Court dismissed his petition for de novo review on 
October 21, 2010.  It is from this order that Zane filed this appeal. 
 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Zane contends that the Family Court’s 
2003 support order violated his constitutional right to counsel, his right to equal 
protection, his right to be free from slavery, and his right to be free from cruel and 
unusual punishment.  Zane also argues that the Family Court erred in denying his 
request for transcript at State expense.  To the extent Zane’s brief challenges the 
Family Court’s 2003 child support proceedings, those issues are untimely and are 
                                                 
5 Zane was incarcerated as of May 2009 and apparently was released in October 2010. 
 
4
not properly before us in this appeal.6   Thus, we will not consider any of Zane’s 
arguments with respect to the 2003 proceedings and resulting child support order. 
 
(5) 
Zane’s remaining claim challenges the Family Court’s denial of his 
motion for a copy of the transcript of the Commissioner’s hearing at State expense.  
Zane contends that, because he was incarcerated, he had a constitutional right to 
transcript at State expense.  A petitioner in a civil case, however, does not have an 
absolute right to transcript at State expense.7  Absent an abuse of discretion, we 
will not disturb a trial court’s denial of transcript at State expense.8  In this case, 
the Family Court denied Zane’s free transcript request because the court concluded 
that Zane’s unemployment was the result of his own voluntary actions.  We find no 
abuse of discretion in that ruling9 and, accordingly, affirm the Family Court’s 
judgment. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice 
 
                                                 
6 See Bentley v. DCSE, 2003 WL 22416037 (Del. Oct. 21, 2003). 
7 Brown v. State, 721 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Del. 1998). 
8 Id. 
9 See Ford v. DCSE/Parker, 2009 WL 4673910 (Del. Dec. 8, 2009).