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

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.
2