Shultz v. Satchel

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s denial of Kim Shultz’s motion for reconsideration of a petition seeking de facto parent status under the Delaware Uniform Parentage Act. The Court held that the reconsideration motion was untimely and did not establish grounds for relief under Family Court Civil Rules 59 or 60. It also upheld the denial of Shultz’s request for a transcript from a separate guardianship proceeding at state expense.

Holdings

1. The Family Court properly denied reconsideration under Rule 59 because the motion appearing on the docket was filed well after the ten-day deadline, and the allegedly earlier motion was also untimely or failed to identify overlooked precedent or a material misapprehension of law or fact.
2. The Family Court properly denied Rule 60 relief because Shultz's motion merely reargued the petition and asserted additional supporting facts without establishing a recognized ground for relief or the extraordinary circumstances required under Rule 60(b)(6).
3. The Supreme Court would not consider Shultz's new Rule 60 arguments because he had not raised them below and no plain error was shown.
4. Shultz was not entitled to preparation of a transcript from the guardianship proceeding at state expense because a civil litigant has no absolute right to such a transcript, Shultz was not a party to that proceeding, and he failed to show relevance to the denial of reconsideration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Family Court abused its discretion by denying Shultz's motion for reconsideration under Family Court Civil Rule 59 as untimely and meritless.
2. Whether the Family Court abused its discretion by denying relief under Family Court Civil Rule 60.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should consider arguments concerning Rule 60 relief that were raised for the first time on appeal.
4. Whether Shultz was entitled to preparation of a transcript from separate guardianship proceedings at state expense.

Disposition

affirmed