1 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY 

JOHN PEACH, ) 

 ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) C.A. No. U6-15-001185 

 ) 

M & T BANK CORP., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant, ) 

) 

and ) 

 ) 

FANNIE MAE CORP., ) 

 ) 

Defendant. 

Submitted May 16, 2017 

Decided June 1, 2017 

John Peach, pro se, for Plaintiff 

Emily K. Devan, Esq., Attorney for Defendants

DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

COMMISSIONER’S ORDER AND APPEAL FROM COMMISSIONER’S FINDINGS OF 

FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On April 12, 2017, Plaintiff John Peach filed an appeal of the Commissioner’s 

findings and recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action. 

Plaintiff’s appeal is DISMISSED, the Commissioner’s Recommendation is ACCEPTED, 

and this action is DISMISSED, for the following reasons. 

Procedural History and Facts 

Plaintiff initiated an action against M & T Bank Corp. (“M & T”) and Fannie Mae 

Corp. (“Fannie Mae”) on September 16, 2015. Defendants did not file answers to 

Plaintiff’s complaint within 20 days after service of process. Thereafter, on November 
2 

25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. On that same date, Defendants’ 

attorney filed, inter alia, an entry of appearance and a motion for enlargement of time to 

respond to the Complaint, as well as a Motion to Dismiss. On December 7, 2015, the 

Commissioner recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied and 

Defendants’ motion for the enlargement of time be granted. On December 23, 2015, 

Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner’s recommendation. On January 29, 2016 the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to timely file it, and accepted the Commissioner’s 

recommendations. Plaintiff was granted additional time to respond to the Motion to 

Dismiss. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint on February 3, 2016. 

On January 19, 2017 the Commissioner held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. On April 4, 2017 the Commissioner 

issued his Findings and Recommendation in a well-reasoned opinion, recommending 

that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted, and thus that Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Amend be denied. 

On April 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Appeal of the Commissioner’s Findings and 

Recommendations, in accordance with the Court’s Civil Rule 112(A)(4)(ii). The Clerk of 

the Court thereupon sent a letter to Plaintiff the same day instructing Plaintiff that, to 

perfect his appeal, he must comply with Civil rule 112(A)(4)(iii) within 20 days. That 

subsection requires the party appealing a Commissioner’s case-dispositive 

recommendation to “cause a transcript of the proceedings before the Commissioner to 

be prepared, served and filed,” unless the parties stipulate to a statement of facts with 

the Judge’s approval. 

On May 5, 2017 Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court informing it that he had 

prepared and mailed his request for a transcript to the Court’s Reporter. However, on 
3 

May 15, 2017 Plaintiff filed another letter with the Court, informing the Court that he 

refuses to pay the $84.00 cost of the transcript quoted by the Court Reporter. 

Accordingly, no transcript of the hearing has been filed with the Court. 

Discussion

Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 112(A)(4)(iii) provides that a party appealing a 

Commissioner’s findings and recommendations “shall cause a transcript of the 

proceedings before the Commissioner to be prepared, served, and filed unless, subject 

to the approval of a Judge, all parties agree to a statement of facts.”1

 A transcript of the 

hearing is required for meaningful review of the Commissioner’s findings, unless the 

parties offer the reviewing Judge a stipulation of facts. Plaintiff has not proffered an 

agreed-upon statement of facts in lieu of a transcript. A review of the allegations and 

assertions Plaintiff repeatedly and stridently makes in his filings and correspondence 

clearly demonstrate the unlikelihood of the parties agreeing to any statement of facts. 

The Plaintiff has flatly refused to pay for the transcript, without any request to 

proceed in forma pauperis, or even any indication that he cannot afford to pay the 

modest transcript fee. Plaintiff’s only stated reason for refusing to pay for the transcript 

is that it “will in no way benefit me, therefore I will not pay the $84.00.”2 The transcript 

is for the benefit of the Court’s impartial review, not for the benefit of one party or the 

other. 

A party “appealing the findings of fact and recommendations of a Commissioner 

under subparagraph (4) who fails to comply with the provisions of this Rule may be 

 

1

 Ct. Com. Pl. Civ. R. 112(A)(4)(iii) (emphasis added). 

2

 Plaintiff’s May 9, 2017 letter to the Clerk of the Court, received May 15, 2017. 
4 

subject to dismissal of said ... appeal.”3 The Court has reviewed the Commissioner’s 

Findings and Recommendations without the benefit of a full transcript of the hearing he 

conducted, and finds it cogent and well-reasoned. Many of the “issues” Plaintiff has 

raised throughout the course of this litigation are patently frivolous. The Court sees no 

apparent injustice or unfairness in accepting the Commissioner’s recommendation 

without a full transcript review, and dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal for his intentional 

refusal to comply with the Rules of the Court. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s appeal of the Commissioner’s report is 

DISMISSED, and the Commissioner’s Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend his Complaint is DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this 

matter is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of June, 2017. 

 

 __________________________________ 

Kenneth S. Clark, Jr., Judge 

 

3

 Ct. Com. Pl. Civ. R. 112(B).