Title: Burley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TIMOTHY BURLEY,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST 
COMPANY AMERICAS, AS 
TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL 
ACCREDIT LOANS, INC., 
MORTGAGE ASSET BACKED 
PASS-THROUGH 
CERTIFICATES, 2007-QS6, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 172, 2024 
§   
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. 2017-0912 
§                    
§                    
§ 
§ 
§                    
§ 
§                    
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 10, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 30, 2024 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 29, 2024, a Court of Chancery Magistrate issued an order, 
deemed a final report under Court of Chancery Rule 143, entering judgment in favor 
of the plaintiff below-appellee.  In the order, the Magistrate advised the parties that 
exceptions could be filed under Rule 144.  Defendant below-appellant Timothy 
Burley filed exceptions, which the parties are briefing in the Court of Chancery. 
2 
 
(2) 
On April 26, 2024, Burley filed a notice of appeal from the Magistrate’s 
February 29, 2024 order in this Court.  The Clerk’s Office issued a notice directing 
Burley to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court’s 
lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a Magistrate’s order that is not final 
under Court of Chancery Rule 144(c). 
(3) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Burley argues the merits of 
his case.1  Burley does not address the jurisdictional defect. 
(4) 
In the absence of a stipulation by the parties to submit their dispute to 
a Magistrate for final decision under 10 Del. C. § 350 or an order by the Court of 
Chancery adopting the Magistrate’s final report under Court of Chancery Rule 
144(c), this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a Magistrate’s order.2  
Neither condition is satisfied here.  The parties did not stipulate to submit their 
dispute to a Magistrate for a final decision, and the Court of Chancery has not entered 
an order adopting the Magistrate’s February 29, 2024 order.  In fact, the Court of 
 
1 Burley also states that he received the notice to show cause from Appellee’s counsel, not the 
Court.  The Court sent the notice to show cause, by certified mail, to the address Burley provided 
with his notice of appeal, but the notice to show cause was returned to the Court with the notation 
“return to sender, attempted—not known, unable to forward.” 
2 Appleby Apartments LP v. Appleby Apartments Assocs., L.P., 2024 WL 851809, at *2 (Del. Feb. 
29, 2024) (holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction over an appeal from a Magistrate’s order 
where the order had not been adopted by the Chancellor or a Vice Chancellor under Rule 144(c) 
and the parties had not stipulated to final adjudication of their matter by a Magistrate); Timco v. 
Allied World, 2023 WL 8739455, at *1 (Del. Dec. 18, 2023) (dismissing appeal from a 
Magistrate’s order in matter in which there was no adoption of the Magistrate’s order by the 
Chancellor or a Vice Chancellor under Rule 144(c) and there was no stipulation under 10 Del. C. 
§ 350). 
3 
 
Chancery has not yet ruled upon Burley’s exceptions to the Magistrate’s February 
29, 2024 order.  Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED 
under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
Justice