Title: Kalil v. Kalil
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 204,2020
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: January 22, 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES P. KALIL, 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DONALD KALIL, 
 
Petitioner Below, Appellee. 
 
§ 
§  No. 204, 2020 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  C.A. No. 11047 
§    
§   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  December 4, 2020  
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  January 22, 2021 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that:   
(1) 
The appellee, Donald Kalil (the “Trustee”) is the trustee of a trust 
created by the parties’ father (the “Settlor”) in 1997, as amended (the “1997 Trust”), 
and is the executor of the Settlor’s estate.  The Trustee is also a trustee of another 
trust created by the Settlor in 1989, as amended (the “1989 Trust”).  The Trustee and 
the Appellant, James P. Kalil (the “Appellant”), are beneficiaries of the trusts, as are 
other members of their family.   
(2) 
The Settlor died testate on November 8, 2014.  On May 20, 2015, the 
Trustee, as executor of the Settlor’s estate and as trustee of the 1997 Trust, filed a 
2 
 
petition seeking to reform the 1997 Trust and other relief.  The Appellant opposed 
the petition and asserted certain claims against the 1989 Trust and the 1997 Trust, 
including a claim that he was entitled to a larger share of the 1989 Trust than was 
reflected in the trust documents and their amendments (the “Reallocation Claim”).  
The Appellant’s Reallocation Claim was that a 1993 amendment to the 1989 Trust 
reduced his and the Trustee’s portions of the 1989 Trust because they owned part of 
the family business; because the Appellant later relinquished his ownership in the 
business, he asserted that he was entitled to a larger portion of the 1989 Trust. 
(3) 
On June 11, 2018, the Court of Chancery entered an order that adopted 
a Master’s report, dated February 7, 2018 the (the “Master’s Report”), which 
resolved many of the parties’ claims.1  One result of the Court of Chancery’s decision 
was that the Settlor’s largest asset would be distributed according to the 1989 Trust, 
which is more favorable to the Appellant than the 1997 Trust is.  The Court of 
Chancery also determined that the Appellant had not properly pleaded the 
Reallocation Claim and that, even if he had, the claim would be time-barred.  The 
Trustee appealed to this Court.  The Appellant filed a notice of cross-appeal, but this 
Court dismissed the cross-appeal as untimely.  On January 14, 2020, this Court 
affirmed the Court of Chancery’s decision.2 
 
1 In re Estate and Trust of Kalil, 2018 WL 793718 (Del. Ch. Feb. 7, 2018), exceptions overruled 
and report adopted by 2018 WL 11028294 (Del. Ch. June 11, 2018). 
2 Kalil v. Kalil, 2020 WL 233848 (Del. Jan. 14, 2020). 
3 
 
(4) 
On April 20, 2020, the Appellant filed a motion in the Court of 
Chancery in which he again asserted the Reallocation Claim.  On May 26, 2020, the 
Court of Chancery denied the motion.  The Appellant has appealed to this Court.   
(5) 
We find no basis for reversing the Court of Chancery’s order.  The 
Master’s Report determined that the Appellant did not properly plead the 
Reallocation Claim and that, even if he had, the claim would be time-barred.  The 
Court of Chancery adopted the Master’s conclusions, and the appellant did not 
timely appeal from that decision.  The Court of Chancery did not err by declining to 
allow relitigation of the issue.3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 
Chancery is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         Chief Justice 
 
3 See generally Sullivan v. Mayor of Elsmere, 23 A.3d 128, 134 (Del. 2011) (stating that a trial 
court ruling may become the law of the case if not properly challenged on appeal).