Thorpe v. Thorpe
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD A. THORPE, Petitioner BelowAppellant, v. ANTOINETTE D. THORPE, Respondent BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 221, 2003 Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Petition No. 02-11653 File No. CN00-11009 Submitted: June 4, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices ORDER This 20th day of June 2003, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 23, 2003, this Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from the Family Court s order dated March 27, 2003, which dismissed the appellant s Motion for Education Documentation and Motion for Disposing of Real Estate and ordered that all future pleadings filed by the appellant would be submitted to the judge for review prior to docketing. (2) On April 25, 2003, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. In his response, appellant argues that the Family Court s order is permanent because it encompasses all future pleadings and, therefore, should not be interpreted as interlocutory. Appellant further argues that the order improperly constitutes a form of censorship in violation of his free speech rights. (3) Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final judgments of trial courts.1 An order is deemed to be final if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court s final act in the case.2 At the time appellant filed his appeal in this Court, the parties were preparing for a Family Court hearing regarding child support. In fact, as the Family Court observed in its order, the two motions it dismissed were in the nature of a discovery request prior to that hearing. (4) The proceedings before the Family Court have not been finally resolved. Accordingly, an appeal from the Family Court to this Court is premature absent compliance with the requirements for taking an 1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 2 J.I. Kislak7788 Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 2 interlocutory appeal in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 42. Appellant has not attempted to comply with this Rule. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that appellant s appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
