Title: Grant v. Kelly
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 245, 2021
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 12, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DONNA GRANT,  
 
 
  § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  § 
No. 245, 2021 
 
 
Petitioner Below,  
  § 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
  §   
Court Below—Family Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  § 
of the State of Delaware 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
  § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  § 
File No:  CN20-02581 
AARON KELLY, Administrator 
  § 
Petition No. 20-10923 
of the Estate of Richard T. Carter, 
  § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  § 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
  § 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
  § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 11, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 12, 2022 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
ORDER 
This 12th day of May, 2022, after consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record on appeal, it appears that: 
 
 
(1) 
When Donna Grant filed her Petition for Paternity Adjudication in the 
Family Court (the “Delaware Paternity Action”), a probate proceeding was pending 
in the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division.  In that 
proceeding, which was captioned In the Matter of the Estate of [Richard Carter], 
Case No. 19 E 907, Grant alleged that she was the decedent’s daughter and thus was 
“an interested person”1 in the proceeding. 
 
1 This Court assigned pseudonyms to all parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
 
(2) 
The Delaware Paternity Action appears to have been designed to muster 
proof of the allegation she made in the North Carolina probate proceeding that Carter 
was Grant’s father. 
 
 
(3) 
Aaron Kelly, who is the administrator of Carter’s estate in North 
Carolina, is a resident of North Carolina.  When she filed the Delaware Paternity 
Action, Grant was a resident of Massachusetts.  Carter’s other intestate heirs live in 
Texas and California, respectively. 
 
 
(4) 
Kelly moved to dismiss the Delaware Paternity Action in deference to 
the first-filed and then “pending estate proceedings in North Carolina,”2 noting that 
“the issues between the parties are substantially interrelated and can be determined 
in North Carolina.”  The Family Court granted Kelly’s motion. 
 
 
(5) 
Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we are 
satisfied that the Family Court correctly applied the first-filed rule as outlined in 
McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Co.3 and did not 
abuse its discretion when it dismissed the Delaware Paternity Action. 
 
 
 
2 App. to Opening Br. at A93. 
3 263 A.2d 281 (Del. 1970). 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice