981 A.2d 559 (Del.Fam.Ct. 2008), CS02-04531, Arroyo v. Arroyo

Docket Nº:CS02-04531.
Citation:981 A.2d 559
Opinion Judge:JONES, J.
Party Name:Dean ARROYO,[1] Petitioner, v. Jeanna ARROYO, Respondent.
Attorney:Seth L. Thompson, Esquire, Hudson, Jones, Jaywork and Fisher, Georgetown, Delaware, attorney for the Petitioner. Jeanna Arroyo, pro se, Georgetown, Delaware.
Case Date:November 17, 2008
Court:Family Court of Delaware
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 559

981 A.2d 559 (Del.Fam.Ct. 2008)

Dean ARROYO, 1 Petitioner,

v.

Jeanna ARROYO, Respondent.

No. CS02-04531.

Family Court of Delaware, Sussex.

November 17, 2008

Date of submission: Sept. 19, 2008.

Seth L. Thompson, Esquire, Hudson, Jones, Jaywork and Fisher, Georgetown, Delaware, attorney for the Petitioner.

Jeanna Arroyo, pro se, Georgetown, Delaware.

OPINION

JONES, J.

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Termination or Reduction of Alimony filed by Dean Arroyo (Husband) on September 19, 2008. Jeanna Arroyo (Wife) filed an Answer on September 22, 2008. This is the Court's decision regarding Husband's Motion.

BACKGROUND

The history of litigation in this case has been long and contentious. The Court will only address the procedural history that is relevant to this decision.

The parties were married on September 6, 1992. They separated on October 23, 2002, and divorced on July 23, 2003.

Page 560

Three minor children were born during the marriage: Adrian Arroyo (DOB 3/17/1994), Lark Arroyo (DOB 2/10/1997), and Andrew Arroyo (DOB 1/11/1999). The Court awarded joint custody to Husband and Wife, and primary placement with Wife after a hearing.

During the ancillary proceedings, the Court ascertained that Husband was capable of earning an annual income of $168,904.00. The Court issued an Order on December 23, 2005 addressing all ancillary matters, including an award to Wife for alimony in the amount of $2,282.11 per month. Husband appealed the Court's decision to the Supreme Court of Delaware. The Supreme Court affirmed this Court's ruling, but remanded the case for the limited purpose of reconsidering Husband's monthly child support payments. Recently, the Supreme Court has affirmed this Court's subsequent ruling on this matter.

On February 6, 2007 Wife requested an emergency ex parte order. She alleged that Husband had not complied with his obligations as to alimony and child support. She further alleged that Husband was planning to flee the country. The Court granted Wife's request for emergency relief and scheduled an emergency hearing for February 16, 2007. Husband failed to appear to the hearing. A Commissioner of this Court issued an Order directing Husband to forfeit his passport to the Family Court no later than 4:30 p.m. on February 20, 2007. Husband failed to surrender his passport by the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP