7 A.3d 992 (Del.Fam.Ct. 2009), CS07-01635, Wool v. Wool
|Citation:||7 A.3d 992|
|Opinion Judge:||HENRIKSEN, J.|
|Party Name:||In re the Matter of Barney WOOL and Lauren Wool, Movants, v. Rachel WOOL v. Roger Wool, Respondents. Petition No. 08-41121.|
|Attorney:||Felice Glennon Kerr, Esquire, MacElree Harvey, Ltd., Centreville, DE, Attorney for Barney and Rachel Wool. Thomas E. Gay, Esquire, Law Offices of Stumpf, Vickers, and Sandy, P.A., Georgetown, DE, Attorney for Rachel Wool. Roger Wool, Pro Se.|
|Case Date:||August 10, 2009|
|Court:||Family Court of Delaware|
Submitted: June 26, 2009.
Pending before the Court is a Request for Review of a Commissioner's Order filed by Barney Wool 1 and Lauren Wool (" Movants" ) on June 26, 2009. Rachel Wool (" Wife" ) filed an Answer to Movants' Request on July 22, 2009, opposing the Request. Roger Wool (" Husband" ) did not file an Answer. No hearing was held on this matter.
Husband and Wife were married on February 15, 2002, separated on March 1, 2008 and were divorced on May 5, 2009. Since Wife filed for divorce on December 15, 2008, the parties have been involved in extensive litigation regarding the issue of
Husband's sale of his interest in the business that he co-owned with his brother, Barney Wool, during the marriage. Sometime after Wife filed for divorce, Husband sold his half of the business to his brother. In an attempt to discern the value the business and therefore the value of Husband's interest when he sold it, Wife asked Lauren Wool, Husband's sister-in-law and bookkeeper of the business, to provide certain financial documents to Wife. The documents were not given to Wife, so she, through her attorney, served Movants with subpoenas duces tecum and Requests for Production of Documents, asking that the Movants produce various documents related to their personal finances as well as the finances of the business. In response to these discovery requests, Movants filed a Motion for a Protective Order asking that the Court quash the Request for Production and issue an Order protecting Movants' personal financial information, in addition to other requests not relevant for purposes of this Order.
On May 27, 2009, the Commissioner issued an Order denying the Motion for a Protective Order and stating, " The circumstances of this sale are suspicious at least in regard to how it relates to the valuation of the marital estate. A true picture of the transaction cannot be derived without full access to these materials. Failure to comply in a timely manner will result in an award of attorney's fees against Barney and Lauren Wool." 2 Movants are appealing this Order, arguing that the Commissioner's Order is not supported by Delaware law. To the best of the Court's knowledge, Movants have yet to provide Wife with any financial documents, whether personal or corporate.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP