Title: Thompson v. Thompson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 409, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEPHANIE THOMPSON, 
 
      
Respondent Below, 
      
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
IAN THOMPSON, 
 
      
Petitioner Below, 
      
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 409, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below: Family Court  
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK01-4610 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  September 29, 2004 
Decided:     October 5, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of October 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 20, 2004, the appellant, Stephanie Thompson, filed 
a Notice of Appeal from an order of the Family Court dated August 24, 2004 
and mailed September 7, 2004, dismissing the motion for interim alimony, 
granting a motion to withdraw as counsel, denying a motion for respondent to 
participate by phone and continuing the ancillary hearing to October 21, 2004.   
(2) 
On September 21, 2004, the Clerk issued a notice to Thompson to 
show cause why the case should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with 
Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. 
 
 
-2-
 
(3) 
Thompson filed a letter dated September 27, 2004, which is 
deemed to be a response to the Notice to Show Cause on September 29, 2004.  
In her response, Thompson appears to acknowledge that the August 24 decision 
of Family Court was interlocutory in nature.  However, she does not address the 
question of her failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an 
appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.   
 
(4) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court is 
limited to the review of final judgments of trial courts.1  An order is deemed 
final if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the 
court’s “final act” in the case.2   The Family Court has not issued its final 
judgment in the case.  Thompson fails to appreciate the strong policy of this 
Court not to accept piecemeal appeals from a single proceeding in a trial 
court.”3 
(5) 
The proceedings before the Family Court are ongoing.  The 
judgment of August 24, 2004 is not the Court’s final order in the case.  
Accordingly, an appeal from the Family Court to this Court is premature absent 
                                                           
1   Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
2  J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 
(Del. 1973). 
3 Pinkowski v. Burris, Del. Supr., No. 396, 1994, Walsh, J. (Jan. 30, 1995) (Order). 
 
 
-3-
compliance with the requirements for taking an interlocutory appeal in 
accordance with Supreme Court Rule 42.  Thompson has not complied with this 
Rule. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal hereby is 
DISMISSED.  
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
Justice