Title: Harrison v. Arcadia Financial LTD.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 535, 3005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 24, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MAUREEN HARRISON,
§
§
No. 535, 2005
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below--Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware in and
v.
§
for New Castle County
§
ARCADIA FINANCIAL LTD., 
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
C.A. No. 04C-12-36
Appellee.
§
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
Submitted: December 22, 2005
Decided:
February 24, 2006
O R D E R
This 24  day of February 2006, it appears to the Court that:
th
(1)
On October 28, 2005, the appellant, Maureen Harrison, filed an untimely
notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated February 10, 2005.  Harrison
requested that the Court accept her appeal on the basis that the Superior Court had not
informed her of the thirty day appeal period.
(2)
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing
that Harrison show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.  The
appellee, Arcadia Financial Ltd., filed a motion to dismiss on the same ground.
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
1
Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i), 10(a); Carr, 554 A.2d at 780.
2
See Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979) (excusing untimely appeal when
3
appellant did all that he was required to do to seek review and delay was caused by court
personnel).
Carr, 554 A.2d at 779.  See Taylor v. State, 1996 WL 539806 (Del. Supr.) (dismissing
4
untimely appeal notwithstanding pro se appellant’s lack of knowledge regarding appeal
procedures).
2
(3)
Harrison did not file a response to the motion to dismiss.  Harrison’s
response to the notice to show cause argues the merit of her appeal and does not
further address the untimeliness of the notice of appeal.
(4)
“Time is a jurisdictional requirement.”   Under Delaware law and
1
procedure, the Clerk must receive a notice of appeal within the applicable time
period.  
2
(5)
There is nothing in the record in this case to reflect that Harrison’s failure
to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to the Superior Court.   An appellant’s
3
pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply with the Court’s jurisdictional
requirements.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 6
and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice