Opinion
No. 642, 2001
Submitted: August 13, 2002
Decided: October 7, 2002
Court Below: Family Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County CPI No. 0120033
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and BERGER, Justices. This 7th day of October, 2002, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
1) JoAnn Barnard appeals, and her former husband, George B. McKee, cross-appeals, from the Family Court's November 26, 2001, Order governing the disposition of certain marital property. In one of its earlier decisions, the court awarded to McKee certain model boats and other personal property in Barnard's possession. When McKee received inferior substitutes for the model boats and other property, he filed a petition to hold Barnard in contempt. Following a hearing, the Family Court ordered Barnard to pay McKee $8,000 in lieu of the missing property. The court did not find Barnard in contempt for her most recent conduct, but awarded attorneys' fees to McKee as part of its sanctions for Barnard's "flagrant" contempt in refusing to comply with the court's earlier property division order.
2) Barnard contends that the Family Court abused its discretion in setting values for the missing personal property and the award of attorneys' fees. We find no merit to this contention. The record supports the trial court's findings as to both awards and we affirm on the basis of the trial court's decisions of September 5, 2000, April 25, 2001, and November 26, 2001.
3) McKee contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award him title to the parties' Franklin Street property. McKee requested that relief because he was awarded 60% of the proceeds from the sale of that property; he has not received any money because the property has not been sold; and Barnard now owes him more than her share of the value of that property. The trial court declined to modify its earlier ruling, finding that a modification of that sort would require "far more accounting than we are able to do today."
4) We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling. The parties have numerous financial obligations with respect to their marital properties and those obligations would have to be carefully sorted out before the court could determine whether to award the Franklin Street property to McKee.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.