Layton v. Layton, 211 A.3d 136 (2019)

May 10, 2019 · Delaware Court of Errors and Appeals · Nos. 567 & 569; 2018 Consolidated
211 A.3d 136
Hanna LAYTON, Respondent Below, Appellant, v. Jackson LAYTON, Respondent Below, Appellee, and Terrance Howard, Petitioner Below, Appellee.

Hanna LAYTON,1 Respondent Below, Appellant,
v.
Jackson LAYTON, Respondent Below, Appellee,
and
Terrance Howard, Petitioner Below, Appellee.

Nos. 567 & 569
2018 Consolidated2

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: April 26, 2019
Decided: May 10, 2019

DISMISSED. AFFIRMED.

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

2 We hereby consolidate these appeals sua sponte. These appeals present common questions of fact and law, and, in the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the recusal order is reviewable as a subsidiary ruling that was made within the course of deciding the petition for guardianship and became final before the consolidated appeals were filed. Cf. Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381 (Del. 1991) ("A ruling by a trial court on a motion for disqualification would generally be deemed interlocutory and not subject to review without compliance with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 42. The ruling denying recusal, although interlocutory, became final in this case when the Family Court dismissed Father's petition because of his refusal to participate in the hearing." (citation omitted)).

--------