Title: Street v. Butler

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARY R. STREET,1 
 
 
Movant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CHARLES A. BUTLER, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 100, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  File No. CS06-01448 
§  Petition No. 10-35794 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 5, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 20, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of June 2011, upon consideration of the appellee’s 
motion to dismiss2 and the appellant’s response thereto, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
Appellant, Mary Street (Mother), filed this appeal from a 
Family Court decision, entered January 28, 2011, denying her motion 
requesting the Family Court to relinquish jurisdiction of the case to the State 
of Maryland.  Because it denied Mother’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction, 
the Family Court has scheduled a two-day hearing on Father’s petition to 
                                                 
1 The Court assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 The appellee also filed a motion to affirm, which we do not address given our disposition of the motion to 
dismiss. 
 
2
modify visitation to be held on July 19-20, 2011.  Father has filed a motion 
to dismiss Mother’s appeal on the ground that the Family Court’s January 
28th decision is an interlocutory order, and Mother has failed to comply with 
the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 in filing this interlocutory 
appeal. 
(2) 
Mother filed a response to the motion to dismiss.  She contends 
that the jurisdictional issue on appeal is separate from the underlying 
visitation issue and, thus, should be separately appealable.  We disagree.   
(3) 
An order constitutes a final judgment when it “leaves nothing 
for future determination or consideration.”3  The Family Court’s 
jurisdictional ruling is an interlocutory ruling because it did not address the 
merits of the case but, instead, left the merits of Husband’s petition to 
modify visitation for future determination.4   
(4) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 
jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final trial court orders.5  
Mother’s failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 leaves this Court 
without jurisdiction to hear her interlocutory appeal.  Mother may appeal the 
January 2011 jurisdictional ruling, however, once the Family Court issues a 
final order on the merits of the case. 
                                                 
3 Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992). 
4 Showell Poultry, Inc. v. Delmarva Poultry Corp., 146 A.2d 794, 795 (Del. 1958). 
5 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
 
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory 
appeal is hereby DISMISSED.  The filing fee paid by Mother in this appeal 
may be transferred to any future appeal from a final judgment of the Family 
Court. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice