Title: The Lions Share Trust v. United Services Automobile Association

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THE LIONS SHARE TRUST and 
KAREN A. ROULETTE, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
UNITED SERVICES 
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION 
and USAA LIFE INSURANCE 
COMPANY, 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 327, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N23C-03-276 
§   
§    
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 10, 2023 
Decided: 
October 16, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
(1) 
The appellants1 filed this appeal from an order, entered by a Superior 
Court Commissioner, that granted the appellees’ motion for judgment on the 
pleadings and ordered the appellants to pay the appellees’ attorneys’ fees and costs.  
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the appellants to show cause why 
 
1 If this appeal were to proceed, it might be necessary for appellant The Lions Share Trust to retain 
counsel.  See Tigani v. Director, 2020 WL 5237278, at *3-5 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020) 
(discussing law regarding pro se litigants’ pursuit of claims on behalf of artificial entities), aff’d, 
2021 WL 2310426 (Del. June 4, 2021).  Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, 
however, we need not address this issue. 
 
2 
the appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to 
consider an appeal from a Commissioner’s order.   
(2) 
In response to the notice to show cause, the appellants assert that the 
Commissioner’s decision was based on faulty evidence and that the Superior Court 
failed to assign the case to the correct jurisdiction.2  It is well-settled that this Court 
is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal taken directly from an order issued by a 
Commissioner of the Superior Court.3  The right to review of a Superior Court 
Commissioner’s order is to a judge of the Superior Court.4  Accordingly, this appeal 
must be dismissed.5 
(3) 
Although this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal, it does not 
appear that the Commissioner’s order was submitted to a Superior Court judge for 
final action as required in case-dispositive matters.6  As the appellants did not serve 
and file written objections to the Commissioner’s order within ten days as permitted 
 
2 We note that the appellees filed their complaint in the Superior Court after the Court of Chancery 
dismissed their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to transfer to the 
Superior Court under 10 Del. C. § 1902.  United Servs. Automobile Ass’n v. Lions Share Trust, 
C.A. No. 2021-0296, Docket Entry No. 31 (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2023). 
3 Browne v. State Farm Inc., 2022 WL 5073767 (Del. Oct. 4, 2022). 
4 Id. (citing DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CIV. PROC. 132(a)(4)). 
5 Id.; see also Redden v. McGill, 549 A.2d 695 (Del. 1988) (dismissing appeal from Family Court 
Commissioner’s order for lack of appellate jurisdiction, although Commissioner’s order was not 
subjected to sufficient “affirmative judicial action” by a judge of the Family Court as required to 
become a final judgment of the Family Court). 
6 Browne, 2022 WL 5073767; see 10 Del. C. § 512(b)(1)b-d (setting forth procedures for a 
Commissioner’s submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition 
of a motion for judgment on the pleadings to a judge of the Superior Court); DEL. SUPER. CT. R. 
CIV. PROC. 132(a)(4)(ii)(iv) (same). 
 
3 
under Superior Court Civil Rule 132(a)(4)(ii),7 it appears that the case may be closed 
if the Superior Court judge accepts the Commissioner’s order.8 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
7 See also 10 Del. C. § 512(b)(1)d. 
8 See id. (“A judge of the Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 
recommendations made by the Commissioner.”); DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CIV. PROC. 132(a)(4)(iv) (“A 
judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 
the Commissioner.”).