Title: Silvous v. Conley

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
HAROLD SILVIOUS and
ISABELLE SILVIOUS,
Defendants Below-
Appellants,
v.
DONALD CONLEY and HOLLY
CONLEY,
Plaintiffs Below-
Appellees.
§
§
§  No. 355, 2000
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 00A-04-006
§
§
§
§
Submitted: February 27, 2001
  Decided:   May 25, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
Appeal from Superior Court.  Reversed and Remanded.
Caroline P. Ayres, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellants.
Daniel R. Losco, Esquire and William P. Brady, Esquire, Losco &
Marconi, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellees.
Per Curiam:
1Attached to the notice of appeal was an unfiled Court of Common Pleas complaint
by the Silviouses against the Conleys alleging misrepresentation in connection with the sale
of the residence.  The notice of appeal also designated portions of “the record and
transcript” and contained citations to the Rules of the Delaware Supreme Court governing
(continued...)
-2-
This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court dismissing the
appeal of defendants-appellants, Harold and Isabelle Silvious, from an order
of the Court of Common Pleas.  Because we find that the Superior Court
abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal, we reverse and remand this
matter to the Superior Court for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
On April 13, 2000, the Silviouses filed an appeal in the Superior Court
from a March 31, 2000 order of the Court of Common Pleas granting the
motion of plaintiffs-appellees, Donald and Holly Conley, for enforcement of
a settlement agreement relating to the Conleys’ purchase of the Silviouses’
residence.  The notice of appeal stated: “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that
Harold and Isabelle Silvious, Appellants/Defendants, Below, does hereby
appeal to the Superior Court of the State of Delaware from the Order
regarding Defendant’s Motion for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement,
respectively, of the Court of Common Pleas, in and for New Castle County,
by Judge John K. Welch, decided March 31, 2000, in Case No. 1998-12-218,
in that Court.”  The notice of appeal was signed by the Silviouses’ attorney.1
1(...continued)
appeals.  Finally, the notice of appeal referred to “Exhibit A,” but there was no attached
“Exhibit A.”  
2Rule 72(c) states as follows:
The notice of appeal shall specify the parties taking the appeal, shall
designate the order, award, determination, or decree, or part thereof
appealed from; shall state the grounds of the appeal; shall name the Court
to which the appeal is taken; and shall be signed by the attorney for the
appellants.
 
310 Del. C. § 1326(d).
4See State Personnel Commission v. Howard, Del. Supr., 420 A.2d 135, 138
(1980).  See also Weston v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 1119, 1121(1989); Massey-
Ferguson, Inc. v. Wells, Del. Supr., 383 A.2d 640, 642 (1978).
-3-
Following a hearing, the Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the
Silviouses’ failure to provide the “grounds” for the appeal as required by
Superior Court Civil Rule 72(c)2 deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction.3
We find that the Superior Court abused its discretion in dismissing the
Silviouses’ appeal.  As we have ruled previously, the proper purpose of a
notice of appeal filed in the Delaware Supreme Court is to provide notice of
the appeal to all litigants who may be directly affected thereby, and to afford
them an opportunity to take action to adequately protect their interests.4  We
conclude that this standard should be applied uniformly to every Delaware
court when functioning in an appellate capacity.  The Silviouses’ notice of
5At the Superior Court’s hearing on the Conleys’ motion to dismiss, counsel for the
Conleys stated “there’s no question that we knew which order was being appealed from.”
Transcript of June 23, 2000 hearing, p. 11.  There was, in addition, no dispute that all
other requirements of Rule 72(c) had been met. 
-4-
appeal, while woefully inept, did nevertheless serve the essential purpose of
providing notice to the opposing parties so they could take action to
adequately protect their interests.5  The Superior Court should, therefore,
have permitted the appeal to proceed.
The judgment of the Superior Court is REVERSED.  This matter is
REMANDED to the Superior Court so that the appeal may proceed. 
-5-