Smith v. Federal National Mortgage Association

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PAULA H. SMITH, §
§
Petitioner Below, § No. 207, 2025
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Court of Chancery
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE § C.A. No. 2023-0653
ASSOCIATION, §
§
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §
§

Submitted: May 27, 2025
Decided: June 9, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears

to the Court that:

(1) On April 16, 2025, a Vice Chancellor dismissed Paula H. Smith’s

exceptions to a Magistrate’s final report. The Vice Chancellor noted Federal

National Mortgage Association’s request for fee-shifting and an injunction against

future filings under 10 Del. C. § 8803(e), but concluded that she lacked jurisdiction

to consider those requests and remanded them to the Magistrate for her

consideration. The Magistrate has not ruled upon the requests.
(2) On May 8, 2025, Smith filed a notice of appeal from the April 16, 2025

Order. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Smith to show cause why

the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme Court

Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. In her response

to the notice to show cause, Smith asks the Court to excuse her non-compliance with

Rule 42 because she is pro se. Federal National Mortgage Association opposes

Smith’s request for interlocutory review.

(3) Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court is limited to the review of

a trial court’s final judgment.1 “A final judgment is generally defined as one that

determines the merits of the controversy or defines the rights of the parties and leaves

nothing for future determination or consideration.”2 In light of the Vice Chancellor’s

remand for the Magistrate to consider Federal National Mortgage Association’s

request for fee-shifting and an injunction against future filings, the April 16, 2025

Order is not final. Smith does not dispute that she failed to comply with Rule 42 so

this interlocutory appeal must be dismissed. She may file a notice of appeal after

the Court of Chancery issues a final order.

1
Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).
2
Showell Poultry, Inc. v. Delmarva Poultry Corp., 146 A.2d 794, 796 (Del. 1958).
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice

3