Case Caption: Malek vs. RomanoCase Number: SCT-CIV-2023-0039Date: 12/03/2025Author: Swan, Ive Arlington Citation: 2025 VI 23Summary: In this appeal from an order of the Superior Court holding appellant in contempt for obstructing the parenting time of the appellee with their minor child, and ordered her to reimburse him for travel and all other reasonable expenses he incurred for the parties’ minor child’s trip to Italy, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Acivil contempt order is final for purposes of an appeal when the court adjudicating the issues makes a finding of contempt and imposes an appropriate sanction, but an order typically needs to be quantified to be considered final: an order is not final until the award granted by the court is reduced to a determinate or quantified amount, and here the the Superior Court did not quantify in the order the specific amount in reimbursement awarded to appellee for travel expenses, airfare, prorated housing cost, meal, and other reasonable expenses incurred for the minor child’s trip to Italy. The quantification requirement avoids a piecemeal appellate review of trial court decisions which do not terminate the litigation, which would thwart the important policy underlying the final judgment rule. Because the Superior Court’s August 1, 2023 order contained an award that was not quantified, or because the order failed to state the amount of the award to be paid, it was not a final order, and we do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Therefore, this case is remanded to the Superior Court for further determination consistent with this opinion.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion