Title: Longshore v. Chase Manhatten Mortgage Corporation

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
JEANNETTE LONGSHORE,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
CHASE MANHATTAN 
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 14, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   C.A. No. 03L-03-017 
                      
 
Submitted:  January 14, 2004 
   Decided:  March 8, 2004   
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 8th day of March 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On January 12, 2004, the Court received appellant Jeannette 
Longshore’s notice of appeal from an order of the Superior Court dated December 
4, 2003.  In the order, the Superior Court granted the motion of appellee Chase 
Manhattan Mortgage Corporation for a rule to show cause and issued a writ of 
possession to the Sheriff of New Castle County directing him to cause Delaware 
House and Home, Inc. (“DHHI”) to have possession of the property located at 27 
N. Tribbett Avenue, Bear, Delaware 19701.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a 
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before January 5, 2004.   
 
 
-2-
 
(2) 
On January 14, 2004, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not 
be dismissed as untimely filed.  On February 17, 2004, the notice was returned as 
“unclaimed” and was re-sent via first class mail the same date.  On March 1, 2004, 
the appellant filed a pleading captioned “The Lord’s Pray,” apparently in response 
to the notice to show cause.  The pleading does not address the timeliness issue. 
 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period 
in order to be effective.2  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3  
Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal may not be considered.4  
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record that reflects that the appellant’s failure 
to file a timely notice of appeal in this case is attributable to court-related 
personnel.  Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Thus, the Court 
concludes that the appeal must be dismissed.     
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 The motions to dismiss of appellee and DHHI are hereby dismissed as moot.