Murphy v. Murphy

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARY MURPHY, 1 §
§ No. 15, 2025
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Family Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No. CN23-03101
JAYSON MURPHY, § Petition Nos. 24-11875
§ 24-11459
Respondent Below, Appellee. § 23-17019
§

Submitted: January 21, 2025
Decided: February 5, 2025

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) The appellant (“Ex-Wife”) filed this appeal from four orders issued by

the Family Court: (i) an order dated December 10, 2024, that denied Ex-Wife’s

motion to issue a third-party subpoena; (ii) an order dated December 10, 2024, that

awarded $2,685 to the appellee (“Ex-Husband”) for attorneys’ fees; (iii) an order

dated December 20, 2024, that denied Ex-Wife’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis as to a motion to reopen a petition to set aside a premarital agreement; and

1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
(iv) an order dated December 10, 2024, that denied Ex-Wife’s motion for

reconsideration of the denial of her request to waive the fee for the transcript of a

case management conference held on October 3, 2024 (collectively, the “Four

Orders”). The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Ex-Wife to show cause

why the appeal should not be dismissed as a procedurally improper interlocutory

appeal.

(2) Ex-Wife responded to the notice to show cause on January 21, 2025,

and the Court directed Ex-Husband to respond. On January 23, 2025, Ex-Wife filed

a document indicating her intent to appeal from a Family Court order dated

December 20, 2024, and docketed December 23, 2024, that awarded $915.61 to the

Ex-Husband for attorneys’ fees (the “Second Fee Order”). 2 On January 28, 2025,

Ex-Wife filed a motion to disqualify Ex-Husband’s counsel, accusing counsel of

professional misconduct and conflicts of interest.3

2
Because of the timing of Ex-Wife’s filing as to the Second Fee Order, the notice to show cause
did not specifically address the Second Fee Order. Ex-Wife’s notice of appeal from that order
asserts that she did not receive the order in the mail until January 15, 2025. It appears that the
Second Fee Order, like the Four Orders, is interlocutory. If it is not interlocutory, however, Ex-
Wife’s attempt to appeal it is untimely. See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(i) (providing that a notice of
appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the docket of the order from
which the appeal is taken); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989) (holding that a notice of
appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate jurisdiction); Rogers v. Morgan, 2019
WL 168667 (Del. Jan. 10, 2019) (dismissing untimely appeal in which appellant attributed delay,
in part, to postal delays).
3
The notice to show cause can be resolved—and the appeal dismissed—without consideration of
Ex-Husband’s response. See generally DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 29(b) (providing for dismissal of an
appeal of an “unappealable interlocutory order” after notice to the appellant with an opportunity
for the appellant to respond). Therefore, no further action is required on the motion to disqualify
Ex-Husband’s counsel in this appeal.
2
(3) “Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate

jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final trial court orders.”4 An

order is a final, appealable order when it “leaves nothing for future determination or

consideration.”5 In her response to the notice to show cause, Ex-Wife argues the

merits of her appeal from the Four Orders, but she does not contend that she

complied with Rule 42 or that any of the Four Orders finally resolved the relevant

proceedings before the Family Court. This appeal must therefore be dismissed.

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

DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice

4
Hines v. Williams, 2018 WL 2435551 (Del. May 29, 2018).
5
Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992).
3