Title: Parker v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GREGORY R. PARKER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND 
SOCIETY, FSB, Assignee of Trident 
Mortgage Company, LP,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 575, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. S11L-10-108 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: December 3, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 11, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 11th day of December 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On October 19, 2012, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated September 17, 2012 and docketed on 
September 18, 2012, which denied his motion to set aside sheriff’s sale and for 
relief from judgment.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal 
from the September 18, 2012 order should have been filed on or before October 
18, 2012.   
 
(2) 
On October 23, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Rule 29(b) 
directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
 
2
untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on 
November 19, 2012.1  In the response, the appellant states that he attempted to file 
his notice of appeal electronically on October 18, 2012, but that the electronic 
transmission was not completed because he did not pay the required filing fee.  
Therefore, he argues, the Court should accept his notice of appeal as timely filed.2 
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days 
after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  Time is a 
jurisdictional requirement.3  A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of 
the Clerk of 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 of Rule 6.5  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.6 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting 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 At the Court’s request, the appellee filed a reply on December 3, 2012. 
2 The appellant argues that the notice of appeal should be accepted as a “nunc pro tunc” filing 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10.2(10). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
6 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.7  Thus, the Court 
concludes that this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
7 The appellant’s failure to pay the filing fee at the time of filing was the sole reason the 
attempted electronic transmission was not completed.  Therefore, Supreme Court Rule 10.2(10) 
does not apply.