Hines v. Williams ( 2019 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MELINDA HINES, §
§ No. 592, 2018
Respondent Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Family Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No. CN15-06488
CHESTER WILLIAMS, § Petition Nos. 16-13554
§ 16-37161
Petitioner Below, Appellee. §
§
Submitted: February 4, 2019
Decided: February 12, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On November 29, 2018, the appellant (“Mother”) filed a notice of
appeal from an interim visitation and scheduling order that was entered by the
Family Court on November 27, 2018. The Family Court order reflects that a hearing
on the appellee’s petition for custody and other matters is scheduled for March 11,
2019.
(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Mother to show cause
why the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme
Court Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order. In response to the
notice to show cause, Mother states that she filed with the Family Court an “Order
Granting Leave to Appeal from the Interlocutory Order.” She has attached to her
response a copy of that document, which is a proposed order.
(3) An order constitutes a final judgment when it “leaves nothing for future
determination or consideration.”1 The Family Court’s November 27, 2018 order is
interlocutory because it sets forth an interim visitation schedule pending final
resolution of the parties’ custody dispute. Absent compliance with Supreme Court
Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final
orders.2 Mother does not indicate that she filed with the Family Court an application
for certification of an interlocutory appeal, as required by Supreme Court Rule 42.3
Mother’s failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 leaves this Court without
jurisdiction to hear her interlocutory appeal. Mother may appeal once the Family
Court issues a final custody order in the case.4
1
Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992).
2
Hines v. Williams, 2018 WL 2435551 (Del. May 29, 2018).
3
See DEL. SUP. CT. R. 42(c)(i) (requiring that an application for certification of an interlocutory
appeal be served and filed with the trial court within ten days of the entry of the order from which
the appeal is sought); id. R. 42(b)(iii) (requiring that an application for interlocutory review contain
a statement that the applicant has determined in good faith that the application meets the criteria
for interlocutory review); id. R. 42(d)(iv)(A) (requiring that the notice of appeal from an
interlocutory order shall include a copy of the application for certification).
4
Hines, 2018 WL 2435551.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
3