Myron T. Steele

Steven Drake appealed from the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of his second motion for postconviction relief, which was filed while a timely motion for reargument remained pending in that court. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice directing Drake to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over criminal interlocutory appeals. Drake did not respond within the required ten-day period, making dismissal unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

Robert Fink appealed his sentence for a violation of probation from the Superior Court to the Delaware Supreme Court. After the Superior Court granted Fink's motion to modify the sentence by removing the Level V portions to allow inpatient substance treatment, the court noted that this modification rendered the appeal moot. The Senior Court Clerk then issued a notice directing Fink to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot, but Fink did not respond within the required period. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal as unopposed under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Caleb Ravin's appeal from a Delaware Family Court order that declined to docket or accept his July 2021 motion to revoke a 2013 child support consent order requiring him to pay $600 monthly to Lynn Spears for their son. The Family Court had previously issued a 2020 custody order granting Spears sole custody, terminating Ravin's visitation, and restricting his future filings due to concerns over frivolous litigation, and it applied that restriction to reject the new motion on res judicata grounds. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court vacated the Family Court's order and remanded the case, holding that the proper procedure for handling a litigant previously found to have abused the judicial process is to follow the requirements of 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) before denying or rejecting a pleading.

family lawprocedure

In Peeta v. Blank, the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed a Family Court order granting permanent guardianship of a child to the paternal grandmother after the father's death in 2016, over the opposition of the incarcerated mother. The Family Court held a hearing, considered testimony from family members, a school counselor, and a social study investigator, interviewed the child, and found by clear and convincing evidence that guardianship was in the child's best interests under 13 Del. C. § 2353, citing the mother's ongoing incarceration, limited prior involvement, and the child's expressed preference to remain with grandparents. The mother appealed, alleging factual errors, witness manipulation, credibility issues, and ineffective counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Family Court applied the correct legal standard, that any factual mistakes were immaterial, and that credibility determinations and factual findings would not be reweighed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

family law

This case involved a contract dispute arising from Nationwide's purchase of a 65% interest in NorthPointe Capital, an investment advisory firm, for $25 million, where the buyer gained rights to manage seven funds subject to express termination provisions including a fee capped at $3.5 million within three years or no fee thereafter. The Superior Court awarded NorthPointe $15.1 million in damages on the theory that Nationwide breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by terminating the management rights sooner than expected. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment, ruling that Delaware law requires enforcement of the contract's express terms and prohibits using the implied covenant to obtain benefits or protections that were not secured during negotiations. The court reasoned that the parties had already allocated risks and compensation explicitly in the agreement, including limits on any expectancy tied to managing the funds, which represented only 20% of assets under management.

business & regulatory

This case concerns two life insurance policies issued in Delaware that insurers alleged were part of stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI) schemes, where the insured procured coverage with the intent to immediately transfer beneficial interests to third-party investors lacking any insurable interest in the insured's life. After the insured's death, the insurers sought declaratory judgments that the policies were void as illegal wagers on human life, despite the expiration of the two-year contestability period. The Delaware Supreme Court, answering certified questions from the federal district court, held that an insurer may challenge a policy's validity for lack of insurable interest even after the contestability period because such a policy is void as against public policy and never comes into force. The court further determined that Delaware statutes prohibit an insured from procuring a policy with the prearranged intent to transfer it to a person without an insurable interest, though a validly procured policy may later be assigned. The trustee of a Delaware trust does not automatically gain an insurable interest when the insured intends an immediate transfer to an investor lacking such interest.

business & regulatory