The Board of Adj of the City of Lewes v. Nepa and City of Lewes ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT §
OF THE CITY OF LEWES, § No. 248, 2018
§
Respondent Below, § Court Below—Superior Court
Appellant, § of the State of Delaware
§
v. § C.A. No. S17A-06-003
§
ERNEST M. NEPA and DEBORAH §
A. NEPA, §
§
Petitioners Below, §
Appellees. §
THE CITY OF LEWES, §
DELAWARE, § No. 256, 2018
§
Respondent Below, § Court Below—Superior Court
Appellant, § of the State of Delaware
§
v. § C.A. No. S17A-06-003
§
ERNEST M. NEPA and DEBORAH §
A. NEPA, §
§
Petitioners Below, §
Appellees. §
Submitted: June 5, 2018
Decided: June 11, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
This 11th day of June 2018, having considered the notices to cause in the
above-captioned appeals and the parties’ responses, it appears to the Court that:
(1) These appeals arise from a Superior Court letter opinion, dated April
11, 2018, reversing the respondent below-appellant Board of Adjustment of the City
of Lewes’ decision denying the application for three variances filed by the
petitioners below-appellees Ernest M. Nepa and Deborah A. Nepa. On April 20,
2018, the Nepas filed a Motion for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees under 22 Del. C. § 332
and the Corporate Benefit Doctrine. The Nepas filed an amended motion on April
25, 2018.
(2) On May 9, 2018, the Board of Adjustment filed a notice of appeal from
the April 11, 2018 opinion. On May 10, 2018, the respondent below-appellant City
of Lewes, Delaware filed a notice of appeal from the April 11, 2018 opinion. On
May 14, 2018, the Senior Court Clerk issued notices directing the appellants to show
cause why these appeals should not be dismissed for their failure to comply with
Supreme Court Rule 42 in taking appeals from an apparent interlocutory order.
(3) In their joint responses to the notices to show cause, the appellants
contend that the April 11, 2018 decision is final and appealable, not interlocutory.
The appellants argue that the pending motion for costs and attorneys’ fees does not
invoke a meritorious basis for an award of attorneys’ fees and a motion for costs
alone does not stay the finality of a judgment for purposes of an appeal. The
appellees contend that the April 11, 2018 decision is interlocutory because the
2
pending motion seeks attorneys’ fees as well as costs and does set forth a meritorious
basis for an award of attorneys’ fees.
(4) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42 (“Rule 42”), this Court
is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment. 1 An order is deemed final
and appealable when it disposes of all justiciable matters.2 “[A] pending motion for
attorneys’ fees delays the finality of a judgment on the merits,” but “a pending
motion for costs alone does not.”3
(5) After careful consideration of the parties’ positions, we conclude that
this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory. A motion for costs and attorneys’
fees is pending in the Superior Court. The possibility that the Superior Court may
deny the appellees’ request for attorneys’ fees does not transform the motion for
costs and attorneys’ fees into a motion for costs alone. The April 11, 2018 decision
is therefore interlocutory. The appellants were required to comply with the
provisions of Rule 42, but did not do so. These appeals must be dismissed.
1
Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).
2
J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).
3
McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 860 A.2d 321, 322 (Del. 2004). See also Emerald Partners
v. Berlin, 811 A.2d 788, 790-91 (Del. 2001).
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that these appeals are DISMISSED.
The filing fees paid by the appellants shall be applied to any future appeal they file
from a final order entered in the case.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
4