Title: Hines v. Williams

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MELINDA HINES, 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CHESTER WILLIAMS, 
 
Petitioner Below, Appellee. 
 
§ 
§       No. 592, 2018 
§ 
§       Court Below: Family Court 
§       of the State of Delaware 
§     
§       File No. CN15-06488 
§       Petition Nos. 16-13554 
§                             16-37161 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  February 4, 2019  
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  February 12, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On November 29, 2018, the appellant (“Mother”) filed a notice of 
appeal from an interim visitation and scheduling order that was entered by the 
Family Court on November 27, 2018.  The Family Court order reflects that a hearing 
on the appellee’s petition for custody and other matters is scheduled for March 11, 
2019. 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Mother to show cause 
why the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme 
2 
 
Court Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.  In response to the 
notice to show cause, Mother states that she filed with the Family Court an “Order 
Granting Leave to Appeal from the Interlocutory Order.”  She has attached to her 
response a copy of that document, which is a proposed order.   
(3) 
An order constitutes a final judgment when it “leaves nothing for future 
determination or consideration.”1  The Family Court’s November 27, 2018 order is 
interlocutory because it sets forth an interim visitation schedule pending final 
resolution of the parties’ custody dispute.  Absent compliance with Supreme Court 
Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final 
orders.2  Mother does not indicate that she filed with the Family Court an application 
for certification of an interlocutory appeal, as required by Supreme Court Rule 42.3  
Mother’s failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 leaves this Court without 
jurisdiction to hear her interlocutory appeal.  Mother may appeal once the Family 
Court issues a final custody order in the case.4   
                                                 
1 Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992). 
2 Hines v. Williams, 2018 WL 2435551 (Del. May 29, 2018). 
3 See DEL. SUP. CT. R. 42(c)(i) (requiring that an application for certification of an interlocutory 
appeal be served and filed with the trial court within ten days of the entry of the order from which 
the appeal is sought); id. R. 42(b)(iii) (requiring that an application for interlocutory review contain 
a statement that the applicant has determined in good faith that the application meets the criteria 
for interlocutory review); id. R. 42(d)(iv)(A) (requiring that the notice of appeal from an 
interlocutory order shall include a copy of the application for certification). 
4 Hines, 2018 WL 2435551. 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice