Palmer v. Brown, 420, 2016

Mother (Sally L. Palmer) filed a notice of appeal in August 2016 purporting to appeal a Family Court order she identified as dated August 4, 2016; docket showed an August 5, 2016 interlocutory order denying emergency ex parte relief and contempt and an earlier October 14, 2015 Family Court order granting Father’s custody modification petition.
In her opening brief Mother challenged the October 14, 2015 custody-modification order but did not timely file an appeal of that October 2015 judgment.
The Senior Court Clerk issued a show-cause directing Mother to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for untimeliness and for noncompliance with Supreme Court Rule 42 for any interlocutory appeal.
Mother responded asserting Family Court employees gave misleading guidance about how to appeal and also argued the merits. She did not identify who gave the advice or provide details.
The Supreme Court considered whether the late notice of appeal could be excused as attributable to court personnel and whether the August 5, 2016 order was appealable without compliance with Rule 42.
Court dismissed the appeal: (1) the October 14, 2015 appeal was untimely and not excused by court personnel error; (2) the August 5, 2016 order was interlocutory and not appealable absent Rule 42 compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mother’s appeal of the Oct. 14, 2015 custody-modification order was timely or excused	Mother contends court personnel gave misleading information about how to appeal, implying excuse for late filing	Father (and Court) rely on filing deadline rules; absence of evidence that court personnel caused delay makes appeal untimely	Appeal of Oct. 14, 2015 order was untimely and not excused; dismissal affirmed
Whether the Aug. 5, 2016 order denying emergency ex parte relief is immediately appealable	Mother treated the Aug. 5 order as appealable and challenged it	Father (and Court) argue the order is interlocutory and not final; Rule 42 required for interlocutory appeal	Aug. 5, 2016 order is interlocutory (action to proceed in ordinary course); appeal dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 42
Whether court personnel may be treated as providing legally sufficient grounds to excuse an untimely notice of appeal	Mother asserts misleading guidance from court staff as basis to excuse lateness	Court notes prohibition on court staff giving legal advice and requires specific proof of court-attributable error to excuse filing deadlines	Mother failed to show when/who/what misleading info; court personnel error not shown; exception inapplicable

Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778 (Del. 1989) (time is jurisdictional for appeals)
Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012) (procedural requirement that notice of appeal be timely filed)
Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990 (Del. 1982) (definition of final, appealable order)