Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Daniel Kloiber Dynasty Trust

Supreme Court of Delaware

September 22, 2014

IN THE MATTER OF THE DANIEL KLOIBER DYNASTY TRUST U/A/D DECEMBER 20, 2002

Submitted September 17, 2014

Case Closed September 22, 2014.

Editorial Note:

This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.

Court Below--Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, C.A. No. 9685.

Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices.

ORDER

Randy J. Holland, Justice

This 22nd day of September 2014, it appears to the Court tat:

(1) Petitioner below-appellant, William Nicholas Kloiber, filed a notice of interlocutory appeal in No. 454, 2014. Petitioner below-appellant, PNC Delaware Trust Company, filed a notice of interlocutory appeal in No. 487, 2014. Both parties have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from the same interlocutory opinion and interlocutory status quo order of the Court of Chancery dated August 6, 2014.[1]

(2) The trial court's opinion denied William Nicholas Kloiber's application for a temporary restraining order, which sought to prevent Beth Kloiber from attempting to enforce certain orders entered by a Family Court judge in Kentucky. The amended status quo order imposed certain restrictions on the parties with respect to transactions involving the Daniel Kloiber Dynasty Trust during the pendency of the litigation in Delaware and Kentucky.

(3) The parties sought certification to take an interlocutory appeal in the Court of Chancery on August 15, 2014 and August 18, 2014, respectively.[2] The Court of Chancery denied the certification applications on September 3, 2014.

(4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that none of the three applications for interlocutory review meets the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b). Accordingly, the applications are refused.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeals are REFUSED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.