Case Title: Arnold v. Arnold

Citation: 

Docket Number: 402, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DOUGLAS W. ARNOLD, JR., 
 
      
Petitioner Below, 
      
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
HOPE M. ARNOLD, 
 
      
Respondent Below, 
      
Appellee. 
§  No. 402, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below: Family Court  
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK01-04133 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 26, 2002 
Decided: 
August 12, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of August 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 15, 2002, this Court received from the appellant, Douglas W. 
Arnold, Jr., a notice of appeal from a Family Court decision dated June 17, 2002, 
which denied Arnold’s motion for appointment of counsel. 
(2) 
The Clerk of the Supreme Court, on July 16, 2002, issued a notice 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Arnold to show cause why the appeal 
should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when 
taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.   
 
 
-2-
 
(3) 
Arnold filed a response to the Notice to Show Cause on July 26, 2002.  In 
his response, Arnold appears to address the merits of the appeal.    
 
(4) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited 
to the review of the final judgment of a trial court.1 An order is deemed final if the 
trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court’s “final act” in 
the case.2   At the time Arnold filed his appeal in this Court, the Family Court had 
before it for consideration Arnold’s petition for visitation.  To date, a final judgment 
has not been rendered on that petition.   
(5) 
The proceedings before the Family Court are ongoing.  Until all issues 
are disposed of, the order of June 17, 2002 is not final.  Accordingly, an appeal from 
the Family Court to this Court is premature absent compliance with the requirements 
for taking an interlocutory appeal in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 42.  
Appellant has not attempted to comply with this Rule. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Arnold’s appeal is DISMISSED.  
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice 
                                                           
1   Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
2  J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 
1973).