Opinion
No. 477, 2003.
Submitted: October 16, 2003.
Decided: November 10, 2003.
Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County, in File No. 26, 906; Pet. Nos. 98-30468, 98-30450, 00-16735.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
This 10th day of November 2003, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Carol A. Harrison has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the Family Court on July 10, 2003. By order dated October 16, 2003, the Family Court refused Harrison's application for certification of the interlocutory appeal.
The July 10 decision addressed the status of sixty-one matters that were pending before the Family Court spanning eight different files and twenty-three petitions concerning three of Harrison's grandchildren. In this interlocutory appeal, Harrison seeks to appeal that part of the July 10 decision that denied her "Motion for Recusation."
(2) Supreme Court Rule 42(c)(i) provides that an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal must be served and filed with the trial court "within 10 days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is sought or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, may order for good cause shown." In this case, the Family Court's July 10 decision was mailed to the parties on August 26, 2003. Harrison filed her first application for certification twenty days later on September 15, 2003. Harrison did not request an extension of the ten-day filing period, nor did the Family Court find good cause to accept the late filing. Consequently, Harrison's application for certification was untimely filed.
A second "replacement" application was filed on September 17, 2003.
(3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases. In this case, Harrison failed to follow the proper procedure for certifying an interlocutory appeal to this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42. The appeal could be refused on that basis. Moreover, even if we assume that Harrison complied with the procedural requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42, we conclude that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the substantive requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b), and the appeal should be refused on that basis.
Moreover, Harrison has not filed the supplemental notice of appeal that is required by Supreme Court Rule 42(d)(iii).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.
BY THE COURT: