Title: Smith v. Deptula

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
CAROL E. SMITH,                      
           
Respondent Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
RICHARD S. DEPTULA, 
     
 
 
     
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 333, 2003 
 
   Court Below – Family Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Sussex County  
   File No. CS94-4263 
   Petition No. 03-06259 
 
Submitted:   October 8, 2003 
   Decided:   December 8, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 8th day of December 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, Carol E. Smith (“Wife”), filed an appeal 
from the Family Court’s May 28, 2003 order granting the petition for a rule to 
show cause of petitioner-appellee, Richard S. Deptula (“Husband”).  Husband has 
moved to affirm the judgment of the Family Court on the ground that it is manifest 
 
 
-2-
on the face of Wife’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and 
affirm. 
 
(2) 
It appears that, on May 17, 2002, the Family Court issued an order 
setting forth a procedure for the sale of marital real estate (the “property”) located 
at 99 Culpepper Court, Millsboro, Delaware.  Under that procedure, each party 
would have thirty days in which to obtain a new appraisal of the property and buy 
out the interest of the other party.  If, after thirty days, neither party had bought out 
the interest of the other, Wife’s attorney would forward a list of three realtors to 
Husband, who would then choose one of them to list the property for sale.  It 
further appears that, on December 27, 2002, Wife’s attorney forwarded a list of 
realtors to Husband, who chose one of them, and the property was listed for sale.     
 
 
(3) 
It appears that Husband attempted throughout the winter of 2002 to 
contact Wife to discuss the listing of the property and the execution of a contract of 
sale.  Because he was unsuccessful in contacting Wife, Husband listed the property 
and, in March 2003, signed a contract of sale.2  Wife refused to sign the contract 
and Husband filed a petition for a rule show cause seeking to compel the sale of 
the property.   
                                                 
1 SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
2 The property was listed at $125,000 and the contract of sale provides that the property 
will be sold for $117, 500. 
 
 
-3-
 
(4) 
On May 16, 2003, the Family Court held a hearing on Husband’s 
petition at which both parties appeared pro se.  After hearing the testimony of the 
parties, the Family Court issued an order dated May 28, 2003 finding Wife in 
contempt of its May 17, 2002 order and ordering the sale of the property pursuant 
to the contract of sale.  The Family Court also directed the Family Court clerk to 
execute any documents on behalf of Wife necessary for settlement.3 
 
(5) 
In this appeal, Wife claims that: a) she lacked information about the 
sale of the property due to the negligence of her former counsel, which prejudiced 
her position at the hearing; b) the decision of the Family Court was not supported 
by the facts; c) the sanctions imposed by the Family Court were excessive and 
irrational; and d) her constitutional rights, as well as those of her former mother-in-
law, were violated.  
 
(6) 
The Supreme Court Rules direct all parties to order a transcript and to 
include in their appendix those portions of the record relevant to any claims on 
appeal.4  The Rules also place the burden on the appellant of producing such 
portions of the trial transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate 
                                                 
3 The Family Court noted that this was necessary in light of Wife’s reluctance to sell the 
property and Husband’s past difficulty in sending mail to Wife at her home in Florida. 
4 SUPR. CT. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e); Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987). 
 
 
-4-
account of the context in which the claim of error occurred.5  The record provided 
to this Court by an appellant must include a transcript of all evidence relevant to 
the challenged finding or conclusion.6  Even an appellant who is permitted to 
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is required to make his or her own financial 
arrangements to obtain the necessary transcripts.7 
 
(7) 
Wife’s claims are unavailing.  In the absence of a transcript of the 
hearing at which Wife was found in contempt of the Family Court’s May 17, 2002 
order and the property was ordered to be sold, this Court has no adequate basis for 
evaluating the merits of Wife’s claims.8  They must, therefore, be denied. 
 
(8) 
It is manifest on the face of Wife’s opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
                                                 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
7 Lynch v. McCarron, Del. Supr., No. 352, 1996, Hartnett, J. (Dec. 17, 1996). 
8 Slater v. State, 606 A.2d 1334, 1336-37 (Del. 1992). 
 
 
-5-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Family Court 
is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice