IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF LEWES , Respondent Below, Appellant,

v. ERNEST M. NEPA and DEBORAH A. NEPA , Petitioners Below , Appellee s
. § § No. 248 , 2018 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. S17A

- 06

- 003 § § § § § §
THE CITY OF LEWES , DELAWARE , Respondent Below, Appellant,

v.
ER NEST M. NEPA and DEBORAH A. NEPA , Petitioners Below, Appellees. § § No. 2 56 , 2018 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. S17A

- 06

- 003 § § § § § §
Submitted: June 5, 2018 Decided: June 11 , 2018
Before STRINE , Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR , Justices.
ORDER
This 11 th day of June 2018, having considered the notices to cause in the
above

- captioned appeals and the parties’ responses , it appears to the Court that:2

(1) These appeals arise from a Superior Court letter opinion , dated April 11, 2018, reversing the respondent below

- appellant Board of Adjustment of the City
of Lewes ’ decision denying the application for three variances filed by the petitioners below

- appellees Ernest M. Nepa and Deborah A. Nepa. On April 20, 2018, the Nepas filed a Motion for Costs a nd Attorneys’ Fees under 22 Del. C. § 332 and the Corporate Benefit Doctrine. The Nepas filed an amended motion on April 25, 2018. (2) On May 9, 2018, t he Board of Adjustmen t filed a notice of appeal from the April 11, 2018 opinion

. On May 10, 2018, t he resp ondent below

- appellant City
of Lewes , Delaware filed a notice of appeal from the April 11, 2018 opinion

. On May 14, 2018, the Senior Court Clerk issued notices directing the appellants to show cause why these appeals should not be dismissed for their fail ure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in taking appeals from an apparent interlocutory order. (3) In their joint response s to the notices to show cause, the appellants contend that the April 11, 2018 decision is final and a ppealable, not interlocutory.
T he appellants argue that the pending motion for costs and attorneys’ fees does not
invoke a meritorious basis for an award of attorneys’ fees and a motion for costs alone does not stay the finality of a jud gment for purposes of an appeal. The appellees contend that the April 11, 2018 decision is interlocutory because the3

pending motion seeks attorneys’ fees as well as costs and does set forth a meritorious basis for an award of attorneys’ fees. (4) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42 (“Rule 42”), th is Court is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment. 1 An order is deemed final and appealable when it disposes of all justiciable matters

. 2 “[A] pending motion for attorneys’ fees delays the finality of a judgment on the merits,” but “a p ending
motion for costs alone does not

. ” 3 (5) After careful consideration of the parties’ positions, we conclude that this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory. A motion for costs and attorneys’ fees is pending in the Superior Court. The possibility that the Superior Court may deny the appellees’ request for attorneys’ fees does not transform the motion for costs and attorneys’ fees into a motion for costs alone

. The April 11, 2018 decision
is therefore interloc utory. The appellants were required to comply with the provisions of Rule 42 , but did not do so

. T hese appeals must be dismissed.

1 Julian v. State , 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 2 J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc. , 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 3 McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 860 A.2d 321, 322 (Del. 2004). See also Emerald Partners v. Berlin , 811 A.2d 788, 790

- 91 (Del. 2001).4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that these appeals are DISMISSED. The filing fee s paid by the appellants shall be applied to any future appeal they file
from a final order entered in the case.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice