Wilson v. Cross and Storm

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 298, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RACHEL WILSON and PETER § WILSON,1 § No. 298, 2025 § Respondents Below, § Court Below: Family Court Appellants, § of the State of Delaware § v. § File No. CN20-02314 § Petition Nos. 23-24331 EVELYN CROSS and RONALD § 24-04841 STORM, § § Petitioners Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: July 21, 2025 Decided: August 14, 2025

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

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

it appears to the Court that:

(1) On July 9, 2025, the appellants (the “Guardians”) filed a notice of

appeal from a Family Court order, dated June 9, 2025, that denied the Guardians’

petition for permanent guardianship of the appellees’ child and granted the petition

filed by appellee “Evelyn Cross” (“Mother”) seeking rescission of guardianship.

The Family Court docket reflected that Mother had filed a motion on July 1, 2025,

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). seeking to shift attorneys’ fees to the Guardians. The Senior Court Clerk therefore

issued a notice directing the Guardians to show cause why the appeal should not be

dismissed for their failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in taking an appeal

from an interlocutory order. In response to the notice to show cause, the Guardians

assert that Rule 42 does not apply because the Family Court’s order is a final order.

(2) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate

jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders. 2 An order

constitutes a final judgment when it “leaves nothing for future determination or

consideration.”3 A judgment on the merits is not final until an outstanding

application for attorneys’ fees has been decided.4 The motion for attorneys’ fees has

not yet been finally resolved in the Family Court, and this appeal is therefore

interlocutory. Because the Guardians did not comply with Rule 42, the Court lacks

jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. The docketing fee that the appellants paid to this Court in conjunction

2 Simmons v. Simmons, 1992 WL 397461 (Del. Nov. 12, 1992). 3 Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992). 4 Davis v. Davis, 2009 WL 685165 (Del. Mar. 17, 2009); Simmons, 1992 WL 397461; see also Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 811 A.2d 788, 790-91 (Del. 2001) (“This Court has consistently held, and recently reaffirmed, that a judgment on the merits is not final until an outstanding application for an award of attorney’s fees has been decided.”). 2 with this appeal may be applied to a future appeal filed by the appellants from the

Family Court’s final order.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice