The Delaware Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Rodney Cullen (referred to as “Father” in the court documents) regarding an order from the Family Court requiring him to pay a portion of Daniela Michaels’ (referred to as “Mother”) attorneys’ fees. The court found that the appeal was not properly filed and did not meet the requirements for an interlocutory appeal.
Background of the Case
The case stems from ongoing custody litigation between Father and Mother in the Family Court. On August 27, 2025, the Family Court ordered Father to pay $10,790 of Mother’s legal fees and costs. The Family Court determined that Father had acted in bad faith by filing numerous motions, some of which contained false information due to his “hasty and reckless” use of artificial intelligence in preparing his legal filings.
The Appeal and the Rules
Father attempted to appeal the Family Court’s decision on September 26, 2025. This involved filing a notice of interlocutory appeal, along with an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal, and a motion for relief from judgment.
Interlocutory appeals are appeals made before a final decision in a case. They are allowed in certain situations, but they are subject to specific rules. In Delaware, Supreme Court Rule 42 governs interlocutory appeals. This rule requires a party to file an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal within ten days of the order being appealed.
Why the Appeal Was Dismissed
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for two main reasons:
* Untimely Filing: Father did not file the application for certification within the required ten-day timeframe. The court found that Father did not provide a good enough reason for missing the deadline. Father argued that the reason for the delay was that his counsel moved to withdraw during the ten-day period for seeking certification. The court disagreed, stating that the circumstances did not justify the late filing.
* Not a Collateral Order: Father argued that the fee decision could be appealed before the custody proceeding concluded because it was a “collateral order.” The court rejected this argument, explaining that the fee decision did not meet the criteria for a collateral order.
What is a Collateral Order?
The “collateral-order doctrine” allows for the appeal of certain decisions even before the underlying case is fully resolved. This is a common-law concept. However, this doctrine applies only to a narrow set of decisions that:
* Address matters separate from the main issues of the case.
* Affect individuals who are not directly involved in the main case.
* Have a significant and lasting impact on important rights.
The court determined that the fee decision did not meet these criteria because Father was a party to the custody litigation.
The Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal was not properly filed and did not meet the requirements for an interlocutory appeal. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).