Title: Hughes v. Peterson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 349, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 2, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HENRY GREG HUGHES,1 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 349, 2011 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Family Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
SANDRA K. PETERSON, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
File No. CS08-02897 
 
Petitioner Below  
 
§ 
Pet. No. 09-07053 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 29, 2011  
 
 
 
 
Decided:  August 2, 2011 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of August 2011, upon consideration of the Clerk’s notice 
to show cause and the appellant’s response to the notice, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
By decision dated June 15, 2011, the Family Court decided the 
parties’ ancillary matters pursuant to their divorce.  The Family Court’s June 
15, 2011 decision provided that “any requests for attorney’s fees . . . shall be 
submitted within 15 days from the mailing date of this Order, and any 
response thereto, shall be submitted within 10 days thereafter.”  
                                          
 
1 By Order dated July 19, 2011, the Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties.  
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
2
(2) 
On June 21, 2011, counsel for Sandra K. Peterson, the 
petitioner /appellee (hereinafter “Wife”), filed a timely request for attorney’s 
fees.  It does not appear that the pro se respondent/appellant, Henry Greg 
Hughes (hereinafter “Husband”), filed a response to Wife’s request. 
(3) 
On July 15, 2011, notwithstanding Wife’s still-pending request 
for attorney’s fees in the Family Court, Husband filed this appeal from the 
Family Court’s June 15, 2011 decision on ancillary matters.  Three days 
later, by order dated July 18, 2011, the Family Court granted Wife’s request 
for attorney’s fees.   
(4) 
On July 19, 2011, the Clerk issued a notice directing that 
Husband show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as an 
unauthorized interlocutory appeal.2  Husband filed a response to the notice 
on July 29, 2011.   
(5) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Husband concedes 
that dismissal of this appeal is appropriate.   Husband also understands that, 
if he intends to appeal the Family Court’s June 15, 2011 decision on 
ancillary matters and/or the court’s July 18, 2011 order on Wife’s request for 
                                          
 
2  The June 15, 2011 decision did not finally determine and terminate the cause before the 
Family Court.  See Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990 (Del. 1982) (providing that absent 
compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an 
appeal from a non-final, i.e., interlocutory, order).  
 
3
attorney’s fees, he must file a new notice of appeal with this Court within 
thirty days of the July 18, 2011 order.3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that this unauthorized appeal filed by Husband is 
DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new and timely appeal by 
Husband from the Family Court’s final order of July 18, 2011.  The motion 
to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Husband in connection with this 
unauthorized appeal is moot.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6 (governing time for filing appeals and cross-appeals).