Case Title: Higgins v. The Council of Pointe at Bethany Bay Condominiums

Citation: 

Docket Number: 672-2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-08-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE.

MICHELE A. HIGGINS and §
TERRENCE S. HIGGINS, § — No.672,2014
§
Defendants Below, § Court Below-Court of
Appellants, § Chancery of the State of
§ Delaware
v §
§  C.A.No. 7543-VCN
‘THE COUNCIL OF THE POINTE §
AT BETHANY BAY §
CONDOMINIUMS, §
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §

Submitted: May 26, 2015
Decided: August 4, 2015

Before HOLLAND, VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 4% day of August 2015, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellants, Michele Higgins and Terrence Higgins
(hereinafter “the Higgins”), filed this appeal from the Court of Chancery’s
November 26, 2014 order granting summary judgment to the appellee, The

Council of the Pointe at Bethany Bay Condominiums (hereinafter “Bethany

 

Bay"), Following the filing of the Higgins’ opening brief, Bethany Bay filed

a motion to affirm.
(2) Upon review of the record, it appeared to the Court that the
November 26 order on appeal granted summary judgment only on Count I of
‘a three-count complaint filed by Bethany Bay. The Court directed the Clerk.
to issue a notice to the Higgins to show cause why the appeal should not be

de

 

issed for their failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when
filing an appeal from an interlocutory order.

(3) The Higgins filed a response to the notice to show cause
followed by a “motion to supplement” the response. In both the response
‘and the “motion to supplement,” the Higgins contend that the November 26,
2014 order is a final order and that nothing remains to be litigated in the

Court of Chancery. In both its reply to the response to the notice to show

 

‘cause and its answer to the “motion to supplement,” Bethany Bay contends
that the Higgins’ appeal is not from a final order because the Court of
Chancery has yet to rule on Counts If and III of the complaint.

(4) After careful consideration, the Court concludes that this appeal
must be dismissed. Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this
‘Court is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.’ An order is

deemed final and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that

the order be the court's final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within

 

* Julian v. Sate, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982.
2
its jurisdiction? In this case, the Court of Chancery has not issued a final
ruling on Counts Il and Il of Bethany Bay's complaint.

(S) Dismissal of the appeal renders the remaining unaddressed
motions, namely Bethany Bay’s motion to affirm and the Higgins’ recent
“motion to compel plaintiff inspection reports,” moot. The filing fee paid by
the Higgins shall be applied to any future appeal filed by them from a final
order entered in the case.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is
DISMISSED. The motion to affirm and “motion to compel plaintiff
inspection reports” are DISMISSED as moot.

BY THE COURT:

? 1. Kislak Morig. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del.
1973).

3