Title: Lazaridis v. Wehmer

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EMMANUEL N. LAZARIDIS,

8
§ No. 134, 2006
Respondent Below- 5
8

Appellant,
§ Court Below—Family Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§ imand for New Castle County
TINA LAVINA WEHMER, § File No, CN04-08707
§ Petition No. 04-21723
Petitioner Below- 8
Appellee. §
‘Submitted: April 3, 2006

 

Decided: May 2, 2006
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices
ORDER

This 2 day of May 2006, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On March 10, 2006, the respondent-appellant, Emmanuel N.
Lazaridis, filed an appeal from the Family Court's February 21, 2006 order
‘denying his motion for reimbursement of his Family Court filing fee and his
second request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP"). The basis for the
Family Court's decision was that Lavaridis had not attached any financial
information supporting his allegations of financial need. Also on March 10,
2006, Lazaridis filed a motion to proceed IFP in this Court, along with an

affidavit containing his financial information.
(2) On March 17, 2006, the Clerk of the Court sent a notice to
Lazaridis directing him to show cause why his appeal should not be
ismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) for his failure to comply
with Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.
Lazaridis responded to the notice to show cause claiming that the Family
Court had sent its February 21, 2006 order to his previous address in
Delaware rather than to his current address in Greece and that he was
lunaware of the certification procedure pursuant to Rule 42. He also stated
that he had filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Family Court to
‘compel the Family Court to use his current address in Greece rather than his
previous Delaware address.

(3)__On March 20, 2006, the Family Court issued an order stating
that it was first informed that an incorrect address had been used for
Lazaridis in his petition for a writ of prohibition, It also stated that a
financial affidavit in support of Lazaridis’ request for IFP status had, in fact,
‘been filed with the Family Cour, but had not been placed in the appropriate
location in his file. Based on that information, the Family Court ordered
Lavaridis' address in Greece to be used on all future Family Court mailings
and his Supreme Court filing fee to be reimbursed, and also granted

Lazaridis’ request for IFP status.
(4) Because the Family Court has granted Lazaridis’ various
requests and has reimbursed his Supreme Cour filing fee, the grounds for
his appeal to this Court and his request for IFP status inthis Court no longer
exist. His appeal and his motion to proceed IFP are, thus, moot and must be
dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT 18 ORDERED that the within appeal and
Lazaridis’ motion to proceed IFP are DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: _

TA LEE O we
Chick Tusice —