Talley v. Horn

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 16, 2024
• Docket: 175, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KENNETH R. TALLEY and § JANICE TALLEY, § § No. 175, 2024 Plaintiffs Below, § Appellants, § Court Below—Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. 2021-0011 DARREN HORN and JUDITH § TALLEY HORN, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: May 9, 2024 Decided: May 16, 2024

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) On April 24, 2024, a Court of Chancery Magistrate issued a final report

under Court of Chancery Rule 144 granting the appellees’ motion seeking

cancellation of a lis pendens filed by the appellants (the “Talleys”) and enjoining the

Talleys from refiling a lis pendens. The final report also concluded that attorneys’

fees should be shifted to the Talleys and directed the appellees’ counsel to file an

affidavit setting forth the fees that the appellees incurred in connection with the

motion to cancel the lis pendens. In the final report, which was issued orally on the record, the Magistrate stated that exceptions to the report could be filed within eleven

days, as provided in Court of Chancery Rule 144(d)(1). The Talleys have filed

exceptions, and briefing on those exceptions is proceeding before a Vice Chancellor.

(2) On April 29, 2024, the Talleys filed a notice of appeal from the

Magistrate’s final report in this Court. The Clerk’s Office issued a notice directing

the Talleys to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction because the Magistrate’s April 24, 2024 final report is not final under

Court of Chancery Rule 144(c) and the request for attorneys’ fees has not been

finally resolved.

(3) The Talleys devote the bulk of their response to the notice to show

cause to arguing the merits of their appeal. To the extent that they address the

jurisdictional defect, they assert that repeated errors by the Court of Chancery

“forced” them to file an appeal, and they contend that exceptions to the Magistrate’s

report are not necessary under Court of Chancery Rule 46.

(4) In the absence of a stipulation by the parties to submit their dispute to

a Magistrate for final decision under 10 Del. C. § 350 or an order by the Court of

Chancery adopting the Magistrate’s final report under Court of Chancery Rule

144(c), this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a Magistrate’s order. 1

The parties did not stipulate to submit their dispute to a Magistrate for a final

1 E.g., Theerachanon v. FIA Cards Servs., 2024 WL 2073629, at *1 (Del. May 8, 2024). 2 decision.2 Nor has the Court of Chancery entered an order adopting the Magistrate’s

final report. Moreover, the Talleys’ argument that exceptions are unnecessary under

Court of Chancery Rule 46 is misplaced. Rule 46 relates to objections at trial; Rule

144 governs exceptions to a Magistrate’s report. In any event, the proceedings in

the Court of Chancery are not final because exceptions are pending before a Vice

Chancellor and the Court of Chancery has not determined the amount of attorneys’

fees for which the Talleys will be responsible.3 Accordingly, this appeal must be

dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, this appeal is DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rule

29(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

2 The Talleys’ attempt to stipulate to final adjudication by the Magistrate in their response to the notice to show cause is unavailing because an after-the-fact, one-sided “stipulation” by self- represented parties, without approval of the Court of Chancery, does not comply with Court of Chancery Rule 144(h) or 10 Del. C. § 350. 3 See Wollner v. PearPop, Inc., 2022 WL 2903103, at *1 (Del. July 21, 2022) (dismissing appeal where the amount of a fee award remained unresolved).