C. v. C.

• Decision Date: 19 April 1974
• Citation: 320 A.2d 717,84 A.L.R.3d 581
• Parties: Husband, C., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Wife, C., Defendant, v. NEWS JOURNAL COMPANY, Intervenor, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 717

320 A.2d 717

84 A.L.R.3d 581

Husband, C., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Wife, C., Defendant, v. NEWS JOURNAL COMPANY, Intervenor, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

April 19, 1974.

Upon appeal from Superior Court. Reversed and remanded.

L. Vincent Ramunno, Wilmington, for plaintiff, appellant.

Rodman Ward, Jr. and Robert W. Ralston, Wilmington, for intervenor, appellee.

Before CAREY, Associate Justice, and QUILLEN, Chancellor, and STIFTEL, President Judge.

QUILLEN, Chancellor:

This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court allowing the intervenor, the News Journal Company, to examine the court file in a divorce action. That order has been stayed pending this appeal. The issue presented by this case concerns the extent of the right of public access, here press access, to court records under our divorce law.

The appellant is Husband, C., an elected state public official, who successfully sued his wife for divorce, the action having been contested. The trial, which, pursuant to the general practice under our statute, was closed to spectators, was conducted from September 10 through September 14, 1973. In addition, during the trial, the file was sealed by Court order after a request by counsel. Thereafter, a reporter for the intervenor, which publishes two daily newspapers in the Wilmington area, asked the trial judge orally for permission to examine the file, citing in support of his request 13 Del.C. § 1506. The request was granted orally on September 24. A stay was issued by a Justice of the Supreme Court on the following day.

Subsequently, while decision on the merits of the divorce suit was still pending below, the record access matter was appealed by the husband and oral argument was held before this Court. On October 26, 1973, due to an almost complete absence of a record on the point raised by this appeal by the husband, we remanded the case to the Superior Court for the limited purposes of permitting the News Journal to intervene, of making a complete record, and of properly certifying the trial court's record. We directed that the matter be returned to this Court once the record had been corrected as ordered.

The record now contains a letter of the trial judge dated October 17, 1973 which states the reasons for his decision in the following language:

'Under the provisions of Title 13, Section 1506, I have no discretion in regard to impounding or refusing access to the entire file, including a transcript of the proceedings that may have been filed, and also any depositions that have been filed, including those portions of depositions that were not introduced at trial.'

Initially, the intervenor raises a procedural objection to the present appeal. The intervenor recognizes that this Court has appellate jurisdiction 'to determine finally all matters of appeal in the interlocutory or final judgment and other proceedings of said Superior Court in civil causes . . .' Delaware Constitution, Article 4, Section 11, Del.C.Ann. However, it is urged that the order in the present case is not interlocutory. In the alternative the intervenor argues that, if this Court decides that the order is interlocutory, then it is not appealable because the order does not settle a substantial issue nor determine legal rights.

An interlocutory judgment is one made in the progress of a case, and which is only intermediate and does not finally determine or complete the suit. 2 Woolley, Delaware Practice § 764 (1906). Intervenor argues that such an order must also relate to the parties to the suit, citing Nadler v. Bohen, Del.Supr., 238 A.2d 836 (1968) as follows:

'It is to be noted that for an interlocutory order to be appealable, it must accomplish two things--first, it must determine a substantial issue In the cause and, second, it must establish a legal right.' (Emphasis supplied by intervenor) 238 A.2d at 837.

We feel that the intervenor's first argument is, in the present context, a narrow technical construction designed primarily to avoid a legal determination of the merits of the appellant's claim. It may well be that the procedural aspects of this case could have been handled differently and better at the trial level, at the one justice appeal level on the question of a stay, and at the full court appeal level at the time of the remand. Once the legal issue was drawn, however, it was obviously necessary to have the intervenor before the Court formally. In the context under which we received the case, intervention, rather than a new lawsuit, such as mandamus, appeared to us to be the most expeditious and best method.

Accordingly, we find that, by the corrected record, the News Journal is a party by intervention and the order appealed from is an interlocutory order in the case, notwithstanding the informal, oral and administrative nature of its origin. Superior Court Rule 24. In short, this is a case where it is appropriate to give a liberal construction to this Court's appellate power in order to facilitate the ends of justice and to prevent alleged procedural irregularities from interfering with appellate rights. Crossan v. State, Del.Supr., 281 A.2d 494 (1971); Knight v. Haley, 6 W.W.Harr. 366, 176 A. 461 (Super.Ct.1934); Thompson v. Thompson, 3 W.W.Harr. 593, 599, 140 A. 697, 700 (Sup.Ct.1928). Compare DuPont v. DuPont, 32 Del.Ch. 405, 409--410, 82 A.2d 376, 379 (Sup.Ct.1951).

Turning to the second prong of intervenor's procedural objection we note that for an interlocutory order of the Superior Court to be appealable it must determine substantial issues and establish legal rights between the parties. American Insurance Company v. Synvar Corporation, 7 Storey 315, 199 A.2d 755 (Sup.Ct.1964); Wagner v. Shanks, 6 Storey 555, 194 A.2d 701 (Sup.Ct.1963); Walsh v. Hotel Corporation of America, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 458 (1967); Equitable Life Assurance Society of U.S. v. Young & Revel, Inc., Del.Supr., 250 A.2d 509 (1969). For history of rule in appeals from the Court of Chancery, see DuPont v. DuPont, Supra, 32 Del.Ch. at 406--409, 82 A.2d at 377--379; Electrical Research Products, Inc. v. Vitaphone Corp., 20 Del.Ch. 417, 171 A. 738 (Sup.Ct.1934). Considering the nature of the order in the present case, we find the requirements have been met. Obviously, to the divorce litigant, a ruling requiring a court without discretion to open the entire divorce file to a newspaper is a question of vital importance. In our judgment, the issue of access to court records is clearly substantial, albeit collateral to the merits of the divorce action. The order from which the appeal is taken certainly decides this issue, and it just as certainly establishes a legal right of the newspaper over the appellant. We look beyond the technical result to see what the Superior Court did. Hanby v. Maryland Casualty Company, Del.Supr., 265 A.2d 28 (1970). The interlocutory order of the Superior Court in this case is therefore appealable.

The question in the case at bar thus concerns access to court records, and is limited to the records of divorce actions. Although the intervenor suggests Constitutional matters, basically a problem of statutory construction is presented. As in normal course, we will treat the non-constitutional matters first.

13 Del.C. § 1505(a) presently provides:

'All hearings and trials shall be conducted in private by the court sitting without a jury, and not by any master, referee or other delegated person; but for reasons appearing sufficient to the court, any hearing or trial may be opened to the public.'

The statute upon which the trial judge based his order is found at 13 Del.C. § 1506:

'No record or evidence in any case shall be impounded or access thereto refused.'

The intervenor contends that the statutes should be read literally by the Court, and that they are unambiguous, thus needing no construction. The appellant-husband, on the other hand, contends that the statutes are hopelessly in conflict. This conflict he argues should be resolved by holding that § 1505(a) repeals or modifies the earlier statute, § 1506, by implication. Thus, with perhaps minor reservation on the appellant's part, both sides agree that § 1506 is in effect a public access statute which grants an absolute right of access. We therefore will first examine the case on that assumption.

The predecessors to the two sections have co-existed side by side since 1907 when they were enacted as a part of an 'Act Regulating Annulment of Marriage and Divorce.' 24 Del.Laws, Ch. 221. See generally, DuPont v. DuPont, 7 Terry 592, 87 A.2d 394 (Sup.Ct.1952). The present § 1506 was enacted in its present form as § 21 of the 1907 act. It has remained unchanged through subsequent codifications. See 1915 Revised Code, § 3024; 1935 Revised Code, § 3517; 13 Del.C. § 1505. Recently this section was renumbered. See 13 Del.C. § 1506.

The present § 1505(a) has a different history. In its original form, 24 Del.Laws, Ch. 221, § 18, the statute required that all divorce proceedings 'be public'. In 1909 it was amended to provide that all hearings shall 'be public; provided that, for reasons appearing sufficient to the Court, the hearing and trials may be had before the Court privately in chambers.' 25 Del.Laws, Ch. 213, § 5. The statute appears in that amended form at 1915 Revised Code, § 3021. In 1927 it was amended a second time at 35 Del.Laws, Ch. 187, § 1, providing that hearings 'shall be had before the Court privately in Chambers; provided that, for reasons appearing sufficient to the Court, the hearing and trial in any particular case may be public.' This form of the statute was codified in 1935 Revised Code, § 3514 and in 1953 at 13 Del.C. § 1503. In 1972 it was renumbered (13 Del.C. § 1505(a)) and modified slightly to the language quoted above.

Thus, the question, as presented by counsel, is the significance of the changes to 13 Del.C. § 1505(a). By providing generally for private hearings, did the General Assembly merely intend to...