Title: Ridgewood Manor HOA v. Ridgewood Manor MHC, LLC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 267, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 29, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RIDGEWOOD MANOR HOA, 
 
Appellee Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RIDGEWOOD MANOR MHC, LLC, 
 
Appellant Below, 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§   
§  No. 267, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. K21A-10-002 
§   
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 16, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 29, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 1, 2023, Ridgewood Manor MHC, LLC (“the HOA”) filed 
a notice of appeal from a Superior Court opinion, dated July 3, 2023, reversing an 
arbitrator’s decision that Ridgewood Manor MHC, LLC (“the Landowner”) had not 
satisfied one of the statutory conditions for an above-inflation rent increase under 
the Rent Justification Act, 25 Del. C. § 7050 et seq.  In the notice of appeal, the HOA 
stated that the finality of the Superior Court’s decision was unclear so the HOA was 
filing the appeal to preserve jurisdiction.  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice 
directing the HOA to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for its 
2 
 
failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an 
apparent interlocutory order.  The notice also directed the parties to address whether 
the opinion appealed was interlocutory or final.     
(2) 
In its response to the notice to show cause, the HOA states that the 
finality of the Superior Court’s decision is unclear because there was no express 
remand to the arbitrator to address issues she had not resolved during the arbitration.  
The HOA does not oppose dismissal if the Superior Court’s decision was 
interlocutory.   
(3) 
The Landowner contends that the Superior Court’s decision is 
interlocutory because issues in the case remain unresolved.  The Superior Court 
reversed the arbitrator’s ruling that the Landowner had not shown the proposed rent 
increase was directly related to the operation, maintenance, or improvement of the 
manufactured home community as required by the relevant version of Section 
7052(a)(2).1  But as the Landowner emphasizes, the arbitrator did not address 
whether the Landowner had shown that the proposed rent increase was justified by 
one of the factors listed in Section 7052(c)—in this case market rent under Section 
7052(c)(7)—as also required by Section 7052(a)(2).     
 
1 Effective July 1, 2022, Section 7052(a)(2) was redesignated 7052(b)(2) and Section 7052(c) was 
redesignated Section 7052(d).  
3 
 
(4) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court is limited to the review of 
a trial court’s final judgment.2  “A final judgment is generally defined as one that 
determines the merits of the controversy or defines the rights of the parties and leaves 
nothing for future determination or consideration.”3  The Superior Court’s opinion 
is not final because it did not resolve whether the Landowner satisfied all of the 
statutory conditions for an above-inflation rent increase and it left issues for future 
determination.  This appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
Justice 
 
 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 Braddock v. Zimmerman, 906 A.2d 776, 780 (Del. 2005).