Spade v. Feeney ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RUDY G. SPADE,1 §
§ No. 188, 2021
Respondent Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No. S18-02819
CHANDRA A. FEENEY, § Petition No. 18-31589
§
Petitioner Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: July 13, 2021
Decided: July 21, 2021
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to
the Court that:
(1) On June 10, 2021, the respondent below, Rudy G. Spade, filed this
appeal from a Family Court order, dated December 14, 2020, awarding alimony to
the petitioner below, Chandra A. Feeney, and a Family Court order, dated May 12,
2021, denying multiple motions, including Spade’s motion to alter or amend the
judgment. On July 1, 2021, Feeney’s counsel notified this Court that there was a
pending application for attorney fees in the Family Court. The Senior Court Clerk
1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
issued a notice directing Spade to show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed as interlocutory. In his response to the notice to show cause, Spade agrees
that the appeal should be dismissed as long as he may file a new appeal when the
Family Court resolves the pending fee application.
(2) After careful consideration of the response to the notice to show cause,
we conclude that this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory. Absent compliance
with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court is limited to the review of a trial court’s
final judgment.2 An order is deemed final and appealable if the trial court has
declared its intention that the order be the court’s final act in disposing of all
justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.3 A judgment is not final and appealable
when there is an outstanding application for attorney fees as there is here.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED. The filing fee paid by Spade shall be applied to any
future appeal he files from a final order entered in this case.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
2
Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).
3
J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).
4
In re Rural Metro Corp. S'holders Litig., 2014 WL 7010818, at *1 (Del. Dec. 2, 2014); Emerald
Partners v. Berlin, 811 A.2d 788, 790–91 (Del. 2001).
2