Title: Scott v. Adams
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 383, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 9, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAURA D. SCOTT,1 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JOHN D. ADAMS, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No.  383, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File No. CN14-02787 
§  Petition No. 14-12482 
§   
 
Submitted: October 25, 2016 
Decided: 
November 9, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
This 7th day of November 2016, upon consideration of the notice to 
show cause and the response thereto, as well as the appellant’s motion for 
the appointment of counsel, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Laura Scott (“the Wife”), filed this appeal from 
an order of the Family Court, dated June 28, 2016, addressing several 
matters ancillary to the parties’ divorce (“the Ancillary Order”).  On July 11, 
2016, the appellee, John Adams (“the Husband”), filed a motion for 
reargument of the Ancillary Order.  The Wife filed a response to the 
                                                             
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 
7(d). 
2 
 
Husband’s motion for reargument on July 20, 2016.  On July 27, 2016, the 
Wife filed her notice of appeal from the Ancillary Order.   
(2) 
The Clerk of this Court issued a notice to the Wife directing her 
to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to 
comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when appealing an interlocutory 
judgment.  The Wife filed her response to the notice to show cause on 
October 20, 2016.  The Wife asserts that she complied with the procedural 
rules requiring that her notice of appeal be filed within 30 days of the 
Ancillary Order. On October 25, 2016, the Wife filed a motion requesting 
that counsel be appointed to represent her. 
(3) 
The timely filing of a motion for reargument or new trial in a 
civil case tolls the finality of a judgment and also, therefore, the time period 
for filing an appeal to this Court. 2  The Family Court’s Ancillary Order in 
this case is interlocutory because its finality was suspended by the 
Husband’s timely motion for reargument, which has not yet been decided by 
the Family Court.  Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this 
Court has no jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal.  The filing fee for 
any future appeal from the Family Court’s final judgment shall be waived.  
The motion for the appointment of counsel is moot. 
                                                             
2 Tomasetti v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y, 672 A.2d 61, 64 (Del. 1996). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is 
DISMISSED.  The motion for counsel is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
Justice