Court Opinion

ID: 9769040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:08:35.55345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:41.576625
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RIDGEWOOD MANOR HOA,                           §
                                               §
       Appellee Below,                         § No. 267, 2023
       Appellant,                              §
                                               § Court Below—Superior Court
       v.                                      § of the State of Delaware
                                               §
RIDGEWOOD MANOR MHC, LLC,                      § C.A. No. K21A-10-002
                                               §
       Appellant Below,                        §
       Appellee.                               §

                             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
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).
                                               2
         (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).
                                              3