Title: IMO: The Living Trust of Eleanor A. Wilson, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 118, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 12, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IMO:  THE LIVING TRUST OF 
ELEANOR A. WILSON, 
DECEASED, and THE LIVING 
TRUST OF SAMUEL C. WILSON, 
DECEASED 
§ 
§  No. 118, 2011 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  C.A. No. 4474-MA 
 
                                      Submitted: March 30, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 12, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of April 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On March 8, 2011, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Court of Chancery’s February 9, 2011 order denying the 
appellant’s exceptions to the Master in Chancery’s order as without merit 
and permitting the sale of real estate in accordance with the contract 
executed by the Trustee.  Because the order from which the appeal is taken 
is interlocutory, the appeal must be dismissed. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that the Master in Chancery 
ordered the sale of real estate out of the living trust of Eleanor A. Wilson 
and Samuel C. Wilson (the “Trust”).  One of the two beneficiaries of the 
Trust, Sandra Kelsch, filed exceptions to the Master’s order.  The Court of 
Chancery determined that the exceptions involved issues that were 
 
2
premature and not ripe for decision.  Moreover, in the absence of any 
evidence reflecting that the exceptant had made a timely offer to purchase 
the property to the Trustee, the Court of Chancery determined that she now 
was foreclosed from asserting any claims involving the sale of the property.  
 
(3) 
On March 9, 2011, 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 for failure to comply with Rule 42(d) when 
filing an appeal from an interlocutory order.  In her response, the appellant 
argues that the appeal is from a final, and not interlocutory, order because 
the Court of Chancery’s order was final as to the sale of the real estate and, 
further, the appeal falls within the collateral order doctrine.1   
 
(4) 
In their replies to the appellant’s response, Linda Wilson, the 
second beneficiary of the Trust, and the Trustee argue that the appeal is 
interlocutory and should be dismissed.  They dispute the applicability of the 
collateral order doctrine in this instance because the Court of Chancery’s 
order a) does not determine a matter independent of the issues in the 
underlying proceeding; and b) does not bind any party who was not a party 
in the underlying proceeding.2   
                                                 
1 Evans v. Justice of the Peace Court No. 19, 652 A.2d 574 (Del. 1995). 
2 Id. at 576. 
 
3
 
(5) 
The Court has considered the above arguments and has 
concluded that the collateral order doctrine does not apply in this instance.  
As such, the Court of Chancery’s February 9, 2011 order is an interlocutory, 
rather than a final, order.3  Because the appellant has failed to comply with 
the procedural requirements of Rule 42(c) and (d), this Court must decline to 
exercise its appellant jurisdiction.4  Therefore, the instant appeal must be 
dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
                                                 
3 Showell Poultry v. Delmarva Poultry Corp., 146 A.2d 794, 796 (Del. 1958). 
4 Stroud v. Milliken Enterprises, Inc., 552 A.2d 476, 481-82 (Del. 1989).