Katsimbris v. Katsimbris

• Decision Date: 13 November 1995
• Docket Number: No. 370,1995,370
• Citation: 670 A.2d 1338
• Parties: Dennis KATSIMBRIS, Respondent Below-Appellant, v. Angela KATSIMBRIS, Petitioner Below-Appellee. . Submitted:
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 1338

670 A.2d 1338

Dennis KATSIMBRIS, Respondent Below-Appellant, v. Angela KATSIMBRIS, Petitioner Below-Appellee.

No. 370, 1995.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: Nov. 13, 1995.

Decided: Nov. 30, 1995.

Court Below--Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, File No. CK94-3754.

Family Court, Kent County

DISMISSED.

Before VEASEY, C.J., HARTNETT, and BERGER, JJ.

ORDER

BERGER, Justice.

This 30th day of November, 1995, it appears to the Court that:

1. On September 15, 1995, the appellant, Dennis Katsimbris ("Husband"), filed this appeal from an order of the Family Court, dated August 18, 1995, which divided the parties' marital property ancillary to their divorce. On November 1, 1995, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice directing Husband to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 29(b) for his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.

2. On November 13, 1995, Husband filed a response to the notice to show cause. Husband's response appears to address the merits of this appeal and does not address his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42.

3. The record in this case reflects that the appellee, Angela Katsimbris ("Wife"), filed with the Family Court on September 7, 1995 a motion for reargument of the August 18 decision. That motion for reargument was not resolved before Husband filed this appeal. The record reflects that the motion for reargument is still pending before the Family Court.

4. The test for whether an order is final and therefore ripe for appeal is whether the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court's "final act" in a case. J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corporation of Delaware v. William Matthews Builder, Inc., Del.Supr., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (1973) (quoting United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227, 232-233 (1958)). A judgment is not final for appeal purposes until a motion for reargument has been decided. Linda D.P. v. Robert J.P., Del.Supr., 493 A.2d 968, 969 (1985).

5. In light of Wife's pending motion for reargument, the Family Court's August 18 order does not constitute a final order. Id. Because Husband has not attempted to comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42, we conclude that his appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 42.