Submitted: June 7, 2017
Below-Family Court of the State of Delaware File No.
CS16-02526 Petition No. 16-33588
STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
L. Valihura Justice.
14th day of June 2017, having considered the
notices to show cause in the above-captioned appeals and the
appellant's response, it appears to the Court that:
above appeals-No. 113, 2017 and No. 192, 2017-are from a
Family Court Judge's orders on a petition for protection
from abuse ("PFA") and on a related motion for fees
and costs. Appeal No. 113, 2017 is from the Judge's
February 23, 2017 order affirming a Commissioner's order
granting the PFA petition. Appeal No. 192, 2017 is from the
Judge's April 6, 2017 order affirming in part and
rejecting in part the Commissioner's order on the motion
for fees and costs and remanding the matter for further
proceedings before the Commissioner. In the interest of
judicial economy, the appeals have been consolidated, sua
sponte, for decision.
Clerk issued notices to show cause in both appeals. In appeal
No. 192, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause why
the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply
with Supreme Court Rule 42 when filing an appeal from an
interlocutory order. In appeal No. 113, 2017, the appellant
was directed to show cause why the appeal should not be
dismissed for her failure to pay required record preparation
and transcript fees associated with the appeal.
appeal No. 192, 2017, the appellant filed a response to the
notice to show cause, contending that the April 6 order is a
final order and not an interlocutory order. The appellant has
not responded to the notice to show cause in appeal No. 113,
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court is
limited to the review of a final judgment. An order is
deemed final and appealable when it disposes of all
this case, the Court has concluded that these appeals are
from non-final interlocutory orders and must be dismissed for
the appellant's failure to comply with Rule 42. In appeal
No. 113, 2017, the February 23 order was not the final
judgment because it did not rule on the pending motion for
fees and costs. In appeal No. 192, 2017, the April 6 order
was not the final judgment because the order remanded the
matter to the Commissioner for further
Although the appeals must be dismissed as premature, the
appellant's right of appeal from the February 23 and
April 6 orders will remain intact pending the issuance of a
final order by a Family Court Judge following the
Commissioner's decision on remand. When the final
order has issued, the appellant may file a new appeal
encompassing that order as well as the February 23 and April
6 interlocutory orders.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that appeal No. 113, 2017 and appeal
No. 192, 2017 are DISMISSED without prejudice to the
appellant's right to file a new appeal once a final order
is entered in the Family Court.