Grant v. Kelly ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DONNA GRANT, §
§ No. 245, 2021
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No: CN20-02581
AARON KELLY, Administrator § Petition No. 20-10923
of the Estate of Richard T. Carter, §
§
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: May 11, 2022
Decided: May 12, 2022
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
This 12th day of May, 2022, after consideration of the parties’ briefs and the
record on appeal, it appears that:
(1) When Donna Grant filed her Petition for Paternity Adjudication in the
Family Court (the “Delaware Paternity Action”), a probate proceeding was pending
in the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division. In that
proceeding, which was captioned In the Matter of the Estate of [Richard Carter],
Case No. 19 E 907, Grant alleged that she was the decedent’s daughter and thus was
“an interested person”1 in the proceeding.
1
This Court assigned pseudonyms to all parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
(2) The Delaware Paternity Action appears to have been designed to muster
proof of the allegation she made in the North Carolina probate proceeding that Carter
was Grant’s father.
(3) Aaron Kelly, who is the administrator of Carter’s estate in North
Carolina, is a resident of North Carolina. When she filed the Delaware Paternity
Action, Grant was a resident of Massachusetts. Carter’s other intestate heirs live in
Texas and California, respectively.
(4) Kelly moved to dismiss the Delaware Paternity Action in deference to
the first-filed and then “pending estate proceedings in North Carolina,”2 noting that
“the issues between the parties are substantially interrelated and can be determined
in North Carolina.” The Family Court granted Kelly’s motion.
(5) Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we are
satisfied that the Family Court correctly applied the first-filed rule as outlined in
McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Co.3 and did not
abuse its discretion when it dismissed the Delaware Paternity Action.
2
App. to Opening Br. at A93.
3
263 A.2d 281 (Del. 1970).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice