Court Opinion

ID: 9953626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 16:03:19.034217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:38.663028
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    LUNA LOCKMAN,1                           §
                                             § No. 60, 2024
          Respondent Below,                  §
          Appellant,                         § Court Below–Family Court
                                             § of the State of Delaware
          v.                                 §
                                             § File No. CN23-05337
    BETTY LOCKMAN,                           § Petition No. 23-24977
                                             §
          Petitioner Below,                  §
          Appellee.                          §

                               Submitted: March 19, 2024
                               Decided:   March 21, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                           ORDER

         After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,

it appears to the Court that:

         (1)    On February 14, 2024, the appellant, Luna Lockman, filed a notice of

appeal from a Family Court commissioner’s January 24, 2024 order granting the

appellee’s petition for a protection-from-abuse-order. The Senior Court Clerk issued

a notice directing Lockman to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed

for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal directly from a Family

Court commissioner’s order.

1
    The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
       (2)     In her response to the notice to show cause, Lockman opines that her

appeal was properly filed. Lockman is mistaken. The appellate jurisdiction of this

Court over civil proceedings in the Family Court is limited to decisions issued by

the judges of the Family Court.2 Under 10 Del. C. § 915(d) and Family Court Civil

Procedure Rule 53.1(a), a party’s right to appeal from a commissioner’s order is to

a judge of the Family Court.3 Whether interim or final, an order issued by a

commissioner is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal to this Court.4 In short,

this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Lockman’s appeal, and it must therefore be

dismissed.

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that the appeal be DISMISSED.

                                              BY THE COURT:

                                              /s/ Karen L. Valihura
                                              Justice

2
  See 10 Del. C. § 1051(a) (“From any order, ruling, decision or judgment of the [Family] Court
in any civil proceeding… there shall be the right of appeal as provided by law to the Supreme
Court.”); Redden v. McGill, 549 A.2d 695, 697-98 (Del. 1988) (holding that the Court’s appellate
jurisdiction over civil proceedings in the Family Court is “limited to orders, rulings, decisions or
judgments of the judges of [the Family] Court”).
3
  See 10 Del. C. § 915(d)(1), (2) (detailing procedures for filing appeals from final and interim
orders issued by commissioners); Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. P. R. 53.1(a) (“An interim or final order of a
commissioner may be appealed to a judge of the [Family] Court….”).
4
  See Redden, 549 A.2d at 697-98.
                                                 2