Court Opinion

ID: 9400856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:04:50.77253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.695007
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                  OF THE
 SAM GLASSCOCK III          STATE OF DELAWARE                  COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
  VICE CHANCELLOR                                                       34 THE CIRCLE
                                                                 GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

                           Date Submitted: May 24, 2023
                            Date Decided: June 9, 2023

              Re:    IMO JMM, a person with an alleged disability, C.M. 19727-N

Dear H:

      On March 24, 2023, you were sent an invoice from the Register in Chancery

for an accounting of the amounts held by you as Guardian, on behalf of JMM. The

sum charged was determined based on the substantial amount of the funds held

under guardianship for JMM.

      Based, apparently, on your reading of Chancery Rule 3(bb), you disputed

that any charge was appropriate for an accounting of funds held under

guardianship. You requested that the fee be “cancelled,” “reversed” and

“retracted.” The Chancery Court Master overseeing the guardianship explained to

you, by letter order of April 25, 2023 (the “Order”) that the accounting for funds

held in trust, whether in a common-law trust or under a guardianship, required the

same process of accounting, and that the rule setting the fee for trust accountings

was applicable. You took exception to the Order by filing a notice of exception on

May 4, 2023; you failed to file the opening brief as required by Rule 144, however.
Accordingly, your exceptions may be deemed waived.1 Nonetheless, I have

examined the Order under the de novo review standard required by our case law.2

       Money held in a guardianship account is held in trust for the person with a

disability. The guardian is bound by fiduciary duties in administration of the

corpus and must account to the Court for the funds held in the account. The

account must be reviewed by the Office of the Register in Chancery; that

accounting review is the service for which a fee is assessed. The Order is correct,

and the Guardianship is not entitled to be a free rider on the services of the Office

of the Register. To the extent not waived, your exceptions are denied.

       The Fee set out in the billing statement of March 24, 2023, is due TEN

DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER OPINION. It is SO ORDERED.

                                                   Sincerely,

                                                   /s/ Sam Glasscock III

                                                   Sam Glasscock III

1
  Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 726 A.2d 1215, 1224 (Del. 1999) (“Issues not briefed are deemed
waived.”).
2
  DiGiacobbe v. Sestak, 743 A.2d 180, 184 (Del. 1999).
                                              2