Derossi v. Derossi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DEREK DEROSSI,1 §
§ No. 507, 2024
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court of
§ the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No. CN22-05066
KAREN DEROSSI, § Petition No. 22-22163
§
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §

Submitted: September 26, 2025
Decided: December 2, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, the

Court concludes that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for

the reasons assigned by the Family Court in its Order on Ancillary Matters dated

June 18, 2024, its Order on Attorneys’ Fees dated October 1, 2024, and its Order

Denying the Motion for a New Trial dated November 12, 2024. Because the

appellant failed to provide a transcript of the ancillary hearing, we are unable to

review his claims of error regarding how that hearing was conducted or the Family

1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
Court’s factual findings.2 The appellant argues that the Family Court should have

granted his motion for a hearing transcript at State expense, but as the Family Court

recognized a civil litigant does not have an absolute right to a copy of transcript at

State expense.3 Even an appellant who is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis,

such as the appellant, is required to make his own financial arrangements to obtain

the necessary transcripts.4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court

is affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths
Justice

2
Supr. Ct. R. 14(e) (requiring that the appellant’s appendix ”contain such portions of the trial
transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate account of the context in which
the claim of error occurred and must include a transcript of all evidence relevant to the challenged
finding or conclusion”); Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987) (holding that the burden
is on the appellant to produce parts of the trial transcript that are necessary to give the Court the
ability to review his claims).
3
See, e.g., Scott v. Kraft, 124 A.3d 584, 2015 WL 5451697, at *2 (Del. Sept. 15, 2015) (TABLE)
(rejecting the incarcerated appellant’s argument that the Family Court should have granted his
request for transcripts at State expense of hearings on his petition for visitation).
4
See, e.g., Hunter v. Gamble, 199 A.3d 108, 2018 WL 6505988, at *2 (Del. Dec. 10, 2018)
(TABLE) (emphasizing obligation of incarcerated appellant granted in forma pauperis status to
make financial arrangements for transcript of visitation hearing).

2