Opinion
No. 189, 2010.
By Order dated November 3, 2010, the Court denied the appellant's motion to expand the record.
Decided: February 3, 2011.
Court Below — Family Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, File No. 08-05199, Pet. No. 08-32950.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 3rd day of February 2011, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Wilson D. Scott ("Husband"), filed this appeal from the Family Court's March 1, 2010 order that divided the parties' marital estate and March 17, 2010 order that denied Husband's motion for reargument. The appellee, Sara A. Scott ("Wife"), has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Husband's opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The record reflects that the parties divorced in 2009 after a marriage of two years and eight months. The Family Court retained jurisdiction to decide ancillary matters. At the February 1, 2010 hearing on property division, Husband argued that he was entitled to the equitable reimbursement of proceeds from the sale of his premarital home that were thereafter commingled with marital funds and then used toward the improvement of Wife's premarital home.
(3) By order dated March 1, 2010, the Family Court issued its decision dividing the marital estate. On the issue of equitable reimbursement, the Family Court ruled that Husband was not entitled to reimbursement.
(4) Husband filed a motion for reargument of the March 1, 2010 order. By order dated March 17, 2010, the Family Court granted Husband's motion to the extent it sought to correct clerical errors in the March 1, 2010 order, i.e., incorrect case numbers and dates. Noting that the clerical corrections did not affects its substantive rulings, however, the Family Court denied the motion for reargument in all other respects after concluding, upon review of the evidence, that the March 1, 2010 findings were based on the testimony given at trial and its assessment of the credibility of the parties. This appeal followed.
(5) On appeal, Husband argues that the Family Court's March 1, 2010 decision was not based on the evidence adduced at trial. In support of his claim, Husband contends that the Family Court's clerical errors "draw [] the rest of the decision into suspicion."
(6) The Family Court has broad discretion to divide marital property under title 13, section 1513 of the Delaware Code. On appeal from an order dividing a marital estate, this Court reviews the facts and the law as well as the inferences and deductions made by the Family Court. The Court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be overturned. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.
Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1513 (2009). Newman v. Newman, 2006 WL 1725581 (Del. Supr.) (citing Linder v. Linder, 496 A.2d 1028, 1030 (Del. 1985)).
Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979).
Id.
Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006) (citing In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995)).
Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175, 179 (Del. 2008) (citing W. v. W., 339 A.2d 726, 727 (Del. 1975)).
(7) In this case, having reviewed the parties' positions on appeal and the Family Court record, including the parties' trial exhibits and a transcript of the February 1, 2010 hearing, we conclude that there is no basis for disturbing the factual findings of the Family Court and no errors of law. Contrary to Husband's arguments on appeal, the Family Court's denial of Husband's claim for equitable reimbursement was well-reasoned and supported by the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED.