Title: Porter v. Townsend

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRUCE PORTER,1  
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ROSIE TOWNSEND, 
 
Respondent, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 61, 2022 
§   
§  Court Below—Family Court of 
§  the State of Delaware  
§   
§  File No. CN19-04055 
§  Petition No. 20-13074 
§   
§   
§ 
  Submitted:  March 15, 2022 
 
 
 
 
    Decided:     March 28, 2022  
 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 25, 2022, the appellant, Bruce Porter, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Family Court order, dated and docketed on December 13, 2021, 
resolving several matters ancillary to the parties’ divorce.  A timely notice of appeal 
was due in this Court by January 12, 2022.2  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice 
directing Porter to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i).   
2 
 
filed.  In his response to the notice to show cause, Porter states that he was unable to 
file a timely notice of appeal because he contracted COVID-19 and is in very poor 
health. 
(2) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.4  An 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements.5  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.6 
(3) 
Porter does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure 
to file a timely appeal in this case is attributable to court-related personnel.  This 
appeal must therefore be dismissed.7    
 
 
 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.1989). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5 Ward v. Taylor, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1 (Del. Sept. 30, 2019); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-
87 (Del. 2012). 
6 Ward, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1; Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
7 See, e.g., Washington v. Div. of Fam. Servs., 2011 WL 6201770, at *1 (Del. Dec. 13, 2011) 
(dismissing untimely appeal where the appellant said she had been in ill health but had not shown 
that her failure to file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to court-related personnel). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rules 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            
Justice