Schiavo, Charles v. TD Bank USA National Association and Clover Network, LLC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHARLES SCHIAVO, § § No. 365, 2025 Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. N24C-07-135 TD BANK USA NATIONAL § C.A. No. N24C-08-107 ASSOCIATION and CLOVER § NETWORK, LLC, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. § Submitted: April 10, 2026 Decided: June 22, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgments below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its opinions dated July 28, 2025.1

Schiavo v. Clover Network, LLC, 2025 WL 2121436 (Del. Super. Ct. July 28, 2025); Schiavo v. TD Bank USA Nat’l Ass’n, 2025 WL 2124176 (Del. Super. Ct. July 28, 2025). The Court has also considered the appellant’s motion to supplement the record with audio recordings of the proceedings below and for oral argument. First, oral argument takes place at the designation of the Court. Del. Supr. Ct. R. 16(a). Here, the Court determined that oral argument was unnecessary because the parties’ briefs set forth the relevant facts and arguments. Second, the record on appeal consists of the original papers, including photographs, documentary exhibits, and the prepared transcript. Del. Supr. Ct. R. 9(a), (b). It does not include the audio recordings of the proceedings.

To the extent that the appellant believes that the prepared transcripts—which he did not request— contain errors or omissions, the Superior Court retains the sole authority to review them for accuracy. Parker v. State, 205 A.2d 531, 533 (Del. 1964) (“It is clear to us that [this Court has] no NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT /s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice power to conduct hearings of any kind to determine the fact as to whether or not this transcript is a correct recording of what took place at the trial….”). The appellant’s motion to supplement the record and for oral argument is accordingly DENIED.