Title: Williams v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANNE WILLIAMS,1 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DARREN THOMAS, III, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 346, 2015 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN14-03871 
§  Petition No. 14-26178  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2015 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 3, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 3rd  day of August 2015, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 2, 2015, the appellant, Anne Williams, filed a notice of appeal 
from a June 25, 2015 Family Court order denying her Motion for Change of 
Venue.  Williams had moved to transfer a custody proceeding from Delaware to 
Pennsylvania.    
(2) 
On July 6, 2015, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to show cause 
directing Williams to show why this appeal should not be dismissed for her failure 
to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in filing an appeal from an interlocutory 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
order.  In her response to the notice to show cause, Williams addresses the merits, 
but not the interlocutory nature of her appeal. 
(3) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court is limited 
to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.2  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 the case.3  The docket of the Family Court proceedings reflects that the 
Family Court denied the Motion for Change of Venue on June 25, 2015 and a 
hearing on Williams’ Petition for Modification of Custody was scheduled for July 
9, 2015.     
(4) 
 The Family Court order denying the Motion for Change of Venue 
was interlocutory and Williams was required to comply with the provisions of Rule 
42.4  Williams did not do so.  The Family Court’s dismissal of Williams’ Petition 
for Modification of Custody after Williams failed to appear for the July 9, 2015 
hearing does not cure the jurisdictional defect created by the premature filing of the 
notice of appeal.5  Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.   
                                                 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).  
4 Julian, 440 A.2d at 991. 
5 Gunzl v. Spayd, 1999 WL 506224, at *1 (Del. Apr. 8, 1999). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
Justice