When filing an appeal timing can be everything. A prior post explored a Delaware Supreme Court decision that held that a motion for clarification does not toll the appeal period. The recent Order issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Scott v. Adams, No. 383, 2016 (Nov. 9, 2016) reminds us that motions for reargument or for a new trial do toll that period.
Background
On June 28, 2016, the Family Court issued its decision on ancillary matters ("Ancillary Order") in the divorce of Laura Scott and John Adams. A short time later, on July 11, 2016, Mr. Adams filed a motion for reargument. Ms. Scott filed a response to that motion on July 20, 2016. Then, on July 27, 2016, she filed her notice of appeal from the Ancillary Order.
The Clerk of Court issued a notice to Ms. Scott directing her to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed as interlocutory. Ms. Scott responded and asserted that she had complied with the Court's procedural rules, which required her to file her notice of appeal within 30 days of the Ancillary Order.
The Order
The Supreme Court dismissed Ms. Scott's appeal stating:
The timely filing of a motion for reargument or new trial in a civil case tolls the finality of a judgment and also, therefore, the time period for filing an appeal to this Court. The Family Court's Ancillary Order in this case is interlocutory because its finality was suspended by the Husband's timely motion for reargument, which has not yet been decided by the Family Court. Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal. The filing fee for any future appeal from the Family Court's final judgment shall be waived.
The Order may be read in its entirety here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
