BOWIE v. HAMBY, 788 A.2d 130 (Del. 2001)

CARL E. BOWIE, JR., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. MICHAEL and JENNIFER HAMBY, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees.

No. 582, 2001Supreme Court of Delaware.
Decided: December 21, 2001

Appeal Refused.

Upublished Opinion is below.

CARL E. BOWIE, JR., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. MICHAEL and JENNIFER HAMBY, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees. No. 582, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: December 21, 2001

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.

JUDGE Randy J. Holland, Justice

This 21st day of December 2001, it appears to the Court that:

1) The appellant, Carl E. Bowie, Jr., has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court dated October 19, 2001. The Superior Court’s order denied Bowie’s motion to vacate the default judgment and the monetary judgment after an inquisition hearing that were entered against him.

2) Bowie contends that certification of this interlocutory appeal is appropriate because the Superior Court’s order determines a substantial issue, establishes a legal right, involves a question of law of first instance in this State, and sustains the controverted jurisdiction of the trial court.

Bowie also contends that review of the interlocutory order will serve considerations of justice and judicial economy and may terminate the litigation as to it. See Supr. Ct. R. 42.

3) On November 19, 2001, the Superior Court granted Bowie’s request to certify his application to take an interlocutory appeal.

4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review should not be accepted.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bowie’s application for an interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.